Licensing Bill [HL]

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
	Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Blackstone.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	Clause 6 [Licensing committees]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 37:
	Page 4, line 7, leave out from "of" to end of line 8 and insert "such members of the authority as the authority shall determine"

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 37, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 41. Amendment No. 37 would remove the restrictions on the number of members of a licensing committee. I spoke to the amendment in Committee, and I was not satisfied with the answer that I received.
	Noble Lords will know that there will be an ever-present need for speed and flexibility on the part of local authorities. In large urban areas, local authorities will be hampered from running the system efficiently by the specification that the licensing committee may have no more than 15 members. Backlogs will build up; applications will be delayed; and applicants will become frustrated. In small areas, local authorities may be hard pushed to find 10 members. In Committee, I referred to Ryedale District Council, in the parliamentary constituency of my honourable friend John Greenway. That council has 23 members. Rutland County Council, in the parliamentary constituency of my honourable friend Alan Duncan, has 20 members. The suggestion that a licensing committee may have no more than 15 members seems a little out of kilter.
	The provision is a setback to the new system before it has even started. No doubt, the Minister will counter my argument as he did in Committee by talking about sub-committees and the fact that,
	"In certain emergencies they"—
	the licensing committee—
	"can even devolve work to officers in order to meet the requirements of particular exigencies".—[Official Report, 19/12/02; col. 835.]
	That is a classic case of over-regulation and unnecessary complication. Why not let the local authorities decide how many members there should be on the committee? They will be able to decide on the number that best meets their needs for the amount of business that the committee will handle. The Bill is over-prescriptive.
	I turn to Amendment No. 41. On the third day in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, said that, when considering applications for licences, all members of a licensing committee would have to be present for the committee to be quorate. That was a surprising thing for the noble Lord to say. It is apparent from the Bill that it would be difficult for a licensing committee to refuse to grant a premises licence or a personal licence. One could be forgiven for thinking that the purpose of the Bill is to repeal licensing law, albeit that it takes 169 pages to do so. Be that as it may, the Bill makes it far easier to obtain either a premises licence or a personal licence.
	The curious thing is that, if all members of a licensing committee must be present for the committee to be quorate—we could think of those in Ryedale, for example—it will be more difficult to obtain a licence. We all know how difficult it is to get a meeting of our colleagues together. Finding a date when all the members of any group can meet is always difficult. Even when a date is found, somebody inevitably cries off for a good or bad reason. The work of government here in Westminster and at local level would come to a grinding halt, if the requirement for a quorum for any committee was set at 100 per cent. Therefore, we resist any suggestion that a quorum should be 100 per cent.
	That was the situation before Christmas. However, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, must have had a good Christmas. He was in more charitable mood on the fourth day in Committee. He said:
	"a local authority could not conceivably act in circumstances in which everybody had to be present and correct in order to form a quorum".—[Official Report, 13/1/03; col. 16.]
	I like the idea that everyone has to be both present and correct. I wonder what the noble Lord means by being correct, rather than just present. The thrust of what the Minister said was that a 100 per cent quorum was unworkable. It looks as if I am pushing at an open door on that point. That being so, it is appropriate that the licensing committee itself should decide the quorum for meetings. It will be best placed to know how busy it is and where a balance should be struck.
	Regulations made by central government cannot take into account the many local variations that would make a quorum figure acceptable in one area but not in another. The quorum for meetings should be decided at local level, rather than by central government. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we support these entirely sensible amendments and hope that the Government will accept them.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I too should like to support my noble friend Lady Buscombe. As I pointed out in Committee, one of the concerns as regards the procedure is that dealings with local authorities over public entertainment licences have not always been as swift, flexible and responsive as people would like. Adding further burdens will make the speed of response even less flexible. Thus anything that may entrammel the local authority in bureaucracy, including a fixed requirement for people to attend meetings, seems undesirable. We seek as much flexibility as possible for the local authority in order that it will be able to respond quickly to applications.
	I understand the Government's wish to see a minimum level of quorum; that is perfectly fair. However, the Bill as drafted is overprescriptive and I therefore support the amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I think that the points are being rather belaboured because of a misconception. Representations made during our earlier discussions and again today suggest that the licensing committee will meet in regular session. The question of quorum would then become much more significant. Let me assure the House that while the licensing committee may wish to meet frequently and is able to do so—that is its business as defined locally—its sole obligatory function as a committee is to make the licensing statement. For that the full licensing committee will have to be present and therefore the question of numbers is significant in that context. However, it is only for that function that the entire committee needs to be in action; it may decide at the local level whether it wants to hold full meetings on other occasions.
	For the rest, we envisage a flexible committee structure to meet the requirements for the granting of licences that will be responsive to local pressures, while at the same time the structure will maintain a clear perspective on the responsibilities of the licensing committee itself and on the nature of the surrounding regulations.
	I understand fully the points that have been made and recognise the issue of flexibility. That is why I wish to emphasise that most licences will be granted within the framework of a sub-committee structure. The Bill attempts to balance flexibility through a framework based on a sub-committee system that will provide licensing authorities and, by extension, the industry with the tools to process applications quickly and efficiently.
	As I remarked earlier in our deliberations, we have sought the views of a wide range of stakeholders, including representatives of local government at all levels, and have concluded that a limit of no fewer than 10 and no more than 50 members will ensure that a licensing committee is not so small as to make decision-making unacceptably slow and not so large as to make its conduct of business unmanageable. We are still of that view. Amendment No. 37 would allow the licensing authority absolute freedom to determine the size of its licensing committee.
	It is important to remember that in the majority of cases we expect applications to be processed administratively at the official level, without any need for a hearing. Under the structure, the licensing committee will deal with the policy statement while sub-committees will deal with those applications raising significant policy issues. Officials will be able to deal with run-of-the-mill licence applications where no significant issue of policy arises. Under those circumstances there will be no need for any member of the licensing committee to be involved if the officers are given the authority to exercise decisions in their own names.
	The policy behind the Bill is designed to promote co-operation and collaboration between licensees and the licensing authority. Most issues should be ironed out by the applicant through dialogue with the licensing authority and the responsible authorities, as well as through reference to the statement of licensing policy, before the application is even submitted. Where relevant representations are received and a hearing is required, members of the licensing committee will need to become involved. But I emphasise again that the whole licensing committee does not have to consider and decide on every application; indeed, for the entire licensing committee to be involved would be an unusual occurrence.
	The Bill provides that functions of the licensing committee may be delegated to sub-committees comprising three members that may sit in parallel. Thus, for example, for a licensing committee comprising the maximum of 15 members, five sub-committees could sit simultaneously to consider what it is hoped would be the small fraction of applications that cannot be processed administratively at the official level. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will note that, coincidentally, the sub-committee system framed in the Bill reflects arrangements currently operated by Westminster Council in respect of public entertainment licences. Those arrangements work extremely well.
	The licensing committee may delegate any of its functions under the Bill except responsibility for the licensing statement. That is why I have emphasised that the full committee will meet quite rarely. Nevertheless, in order to avoid large and unwieldy committees, we have stipulated a maximum of 15 members. I recognise that, in mentioning Ryedale, the noble Baroness made the important point that local authorities vary greatly in size. A committee of 10 members might constitute half of the total membership of certain small authorities. However, the fact that in the main the full committee need not meet will minimise the pressure put on members, while at the same time ensuring that an adequate pool will be maintained from which to draw a sub-committee, should one be required at short notice.
	In addition, and turning to Amendment No. 41 which was also spoken to by the noble Baroness, the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations setting out, among other matters, the quorum for meetings of the licensing committee and its sub-committees. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has supported these amendments and on a previous occasion expressed his concern that the Bill does not state how many members had to be present for a licensing committee to be quorate. He was right to point that out; those details do not appear on the face of the Bill. However, the Secretary of State will be able to set limits through secondary legislation. If the Secretary of State does not make such regulations, then by virtue of Clause 9(3) each licensing committee can choose to regulate its own procedure and that of its sub-committees. So if the Secretary of State does not make regulations, then the responsibility will be devolved to the licensing committee.
	I should mention one further point. It will be in everyone's interests to ensure that where hearings are required, they can be dealt with in a timely fashion. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, pointed out in Committee, speed is often of the essence. The licensing authority must be in a position to respond quickly on certain occasions. By providing for a system of sub-committees to handle individual applications, and an upper limit on the size of the full licensing committee, we can ensure delivery of those key priorities.
	I should also like to remind the House of the assurances I gave in Committee that fair and practical timetables for the processing of applications will be set out in regulations. Those too will be developed through continued consultation with local government, industry and other stakeholders.
	I maintain therefore that the Bill strikes the right balance. It allows for up to five sub-committees to meet simultaneously if that is necessary, while limiting the maximum size of the licensing committee to one that is manageable.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he confirm whether sub-committees will be able to deal with an important function of a licensing authority; that is, to review closure orders made under the terms of Clause 164? If so, will the three-member sub-committees be flexible in their composition so that the licensing committee could appoint any three members to deal with reviews of closure orders, in case those particular members happened to be present at the time?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. We are still involved in consultation in regard to guidance and the implementation of the Bill. The noble Lord's point is well made and we will take on board the representations he has made today.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full reply. As regards Amendment No. 37, it is interesting that this is a deregulatory Bill and that, on the one hand, the Government are keen that much of the decision-making should be devolved to local authorities, and yet, on the other hand, the Bill stipulates what should be the size of the committee. The Government say that they envisage a structure of flexibility. Much of the nuts and bolts of the proposed new legislation for licensing is contained in the guidance, which has no legal authority and could be changed overnight, and yet the size of a licensing committee is defined in very strict terms on the face of the Bill. I find that inconsistent and extraordinary.
	I am entirely satisfied with the Minister's reply in regard to Amendment No. 41. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 7 [Exercise and delegation of functions]:

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 38:
	Page 4, line 44, at end insert—
	"( ) In a case where an authority exercises its power under subsection (5)(b), its licensing committee must (unless the matter is urgent) consider any report of any of the authority's other committees with respect to the matter before discharging the function concerned."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Page 5, line 5, at end insert—
	"( ) Where a licensing committee receives licensing applications which involve its own local authority, it shall refer such cases to a magistrates' court for determination."

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, Amendment No. 39 seeks to amend Clause 7 of the Bill, which concerns the exercise and delegation of functions of a licensing committee. It raises the issue of conflicts of interest and attempts to resolve it.
	As noble Lords are aware, the Bill transfers all licensing functions to local authorities. There will be a number of occasions when licensing authorities will apply for licences for themselves and will therefore be judge and jury on their own applications. This raises an issue of transparency and public confidence which has not yet been fully addressed by the Government.
	The issue was debated in Committee, where my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon said that,
	"the courts have become ever more careful to ensure that there is not only no actual conflict of interest, but no perceived conflict of interest either".—[Official Report, 13/1/03; col. 13.]
	I have read carefully what the Minister said in Committee. The main plank of his argument was that this issue is already covered in two existing statutes—the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. But one Act dates from 1963 and the other from 1982. So, in one case, the legislation is more than 20 years old and, in the other, 40 years old. The Government have failed to understand the extent to which public opinion and best practice have moved on. Therefore this is an issue which deserves and needs further consideration.
	Will people who are opposed to the grant of a licence by the local authority to itself believe that the local authority will hear their case properly and fairly? Equally, on the other side, will commercial providers of competitive services—be they alcohol or entertainment-related—be confident that their case will be properly weighed? It is unfair as much as wrong to put the local authority in this position.
	I have scanned the guidance notes but I cannot see any reference to the issues raised in connection with a local authority considering its own applications. Indeed, paragraph 6.44 refers extensively to the difficulties of ward councillors receiving complaints from residents within their own wards. That micro example seems to apply macro to a council as a whole when considering a licence for itself.
	As presently drafted, the Bill is a recipe for disappointment locally in this regard. It is not in keeping with modern practice; it is old fashioned and out of date. We should have clarity and transparency. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord has presented his case as ably as he did on the previous occasion, when I was taken somewhat by surprise because I had not anticipated that this was a particularly contentious issue.
	Not all Acts of Parliament from the past are necessarily dated. If they have given good service and have not raised public concern, we will do well to rely upon the precedents they have established. I quoted the two Acts to which the noble Lord referred—the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and, perish the thought, one that went back 40 years, the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act 1963—because both Acts govern the actions of local authorities when they are involved in self-licensing in regard to public entertainment.
	We are not crossing a new bridge but extending the existing one. Local authorities will now be involved in licensing issues which relate to the sale of alcohol—the obvious feature of the Bill. But they have been involved in self-licensing for a considerable period of time under the existing Acts, and issues of conflicts of interest have not arisen in the way foreshadowed by the noble Lord in regard to this Bill.
	We are basing our position on the reasonable precedent that local authorities know how to handle these issues. They will have to go through all the same procedures as anyone else who applies for a licence. Their applications will need to be advertised and notified to all the responsible authorities identified in the Bill; it will be open to the responsible authorities and interested parties, including local businesses, to make representations; and it will be open to anyone involved in the process, if they disagree with the decision eventually arrived at, to appeal against the licensing authority's decision to the magistrates' courts. So the local authorities are obliged to follow, at every stage, exactly the same procedures as anyone else applying for a licence.
	We have designed the new licensing system with this degree of openness and transparency in mind. It was a major priority in the legislation, although not for the precise reasons alluded to by the noble Lord. I cannot conceive of circumstances in which a licensing authority's decisions might be influenced by a conflict of interests in an untoward way. I find it even harder to think of circumstances in which the public, and in particular the industry—were the decisions adverse to it—would let the authority get away with it.
	Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to recognise that the Bill extends into the field of the sale of alcohol—an existing precedent in terms of local authorities acting in a way that might lead to a conflict of interest. The procedures with regard to application are open to guarantee that everyone can make appropriate representations.
	I have listened carefully to the noble Lord making his point with some force for the second time. We should be happy to include in the guidance the rules governing standards and conflict of interest which already apply to local councillors. We shall reinforce that point so far as concerns local councillors. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord may feel that we have met the substance of his point and will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I am grateful for that last reassurance. We move into a new world as we move to a new licensing system. Praying in aid what has gone on in the past is not as relevant as all that.
	I accept the point that an appeal will be to the magistrates' court anyway. It seemed to me that it would be quicker to deal with local authority cases by going there straightaway and starting there rather than having to go round the route through the local authority first. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having agreed to insert some further words in the guidance. I think that that takes the matter far enough for me to be able to withdraw the amendment and beg leave to do so.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may introduce a correction. I made a slip of the tongue a moment ago which I want to correct for the purposes of the record. I think I said in relation to Amendments Nos. 37 and 41 that the responsibility for the licensing policy statement is that of the licensing committee. I meant the licensing authority. For the purposes of the record I want to make that clear. I apologise to the House for intruding at this juncture.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 8 [Requirement to keep a register]:

Lord Redesdale: moved Amendment No. 40:
	Page 5, line 13, at end insert—
	"( ) the name and address of any person who has an estate or interest in the premises whether as owner or lessee, prior or paramount to that of the occupier,"

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 80, 94 and 114.
	I said in Committee that I would return to this issue. The industry is keen for it to be included in the Bill. It also has the support of the Licensed Victuallers Association. I want to present four arguments for its inclusion.
	First, an owning company will often be in a position to promote the licensing objectives through its contractual agreement with the tenant or lessee. Notification of breaches of the premises licence would allow the registered party to enforce the terms of such an agreement to the effect that the terms and conditions of the premises licence must be complied with. The registered interest would want to protect its rights in the property whose value is linked to the possession of a premises licence. This situation is particularly prevalent in the pub sector, where thousands of pubs are owned by pub companies and leased to tenants.
	Secondly, the ability to register an interest will enable the owning company to meet its reversionary interest in the event of the demise of the tenant. This can be useful to both parties in the event of death or incapacity. It is also beneficial where a tenant absconds leaving the business adrift. The owning company, by virtue of its interest, can step in, appoint a personal licence holder and maintain the business quickly and efficiently.
	Thirdly, the beneficiary of a superior legal interest which is currently protected is entitled, as a matter of natural justice, to seek to ensure that its interest in a property, the value of which is linked to a significant degree to the possession of the premises licence, is properly recognised.
	Fourthly, the register of interest will make it much easier for companies to retain premises as going concerns, thereby protecting the jobs of those employed and, equally importantly, those employed indirectly such as musicians who are dependent on pubs and other licensed premises.
	We believe that there is value in adding these amendments to the Bill. The industry is prepared to take on the further responsibility that the amendments set out. We believe that such provision would be of value to the industry but also to those who live in the vicinity of the pubs and to many tenants. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support these amendments and have added my name to them, as has my noble friend Lord Luke.
	We debated this issue at length in Committee, but we were unable to persuade the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has set out what we believe are sensible reasons for the amendments. We have been approached repeatedly by those in the industry through the British Beer & Pub Association and believe that they have a strong case.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, a right to register interests already exists in Section 32 of the Licensing Act 1964. This needs to be preserved in the proposed legislation and linked into all sections where the investment of the party with the superior interest is threatened by the actions of the designated premises supervisor, the premises owner or other circumstance.
	Notification of breaches of the premises licence would allow the registered party to enforce the terms of such an agreement to the effect that the terms and conditions of the premises licence must be complied with. The registered interest would want to protect its rights in a property whose value was linked to the possession of a premises licence. That is an important point, particularly in relation to the pub sector, where large breweries own and manage a large number of premises leased to tenants.
	Amendment No. 80 relates to Clause 27, which provides that the licence shall lapse automatically upon receipt of the licensee's notice of surrender. At present, the interests of those owning licensed premises are protected by established case law—the decision of the High Court in Drury v Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) Ltd v Scunthorpe Justices (1992). It is wrong, therefore, to suggest that similar provisions are made under existing legislation. Furthermore, existing protection represents a proprietorial interest and necessary protection for property owners. If lessees who have an interest in the premises which is subsidiary to that of the lessor are able to surrender licences without the consent of the lessor, that would place at risk a key element of the property which the lessor has made available to the lessee, so depriving the lessor of that "possession" without a corresponding or equivalent public benefit. This consequently goes against Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Human Rights Act 1998.
	Furthermore, the availability of a contractual remedy in such circumstances will, in practice, rarely be of comfort to the lessor.
	I turn to Amendment No. 94. The requirement for the licensing authority to give such notices will, in view of the terms of the proposed subsection, be relatively infrequent and the cost of such a process can be covered entirely by the revenue generated by the initial registration of such interest. Amendment No. 114 is consequential.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, while I agree with every word that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, have said in support of the amendment, it is clear that registrable interests are a gap in the new scheme introduced by the Bill.
	However, I observe that in effect the first amendment would add a new paragraph (e) to Clause 8(1) which may—I hope we are about to be told—not be necessary, because Clause 8(1)(d) states that the register should contain:
	"such other information as may be prescribed".
	I hope that the gap for which explanation has just been given will indeed be filled by prescribing exactly that kind of information. I hope that that is what we are about to be told.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I add my support to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Increasingly, breweries are letting long leases of 21 years to tenants who, after four or five years of work, make the pub very profitable. The tenants then sell the remaining 16 years of the lease because of the additional value that they have created. That is increasingly part of the way in which the sector operates. Entrepreneurs come in, such as a husband-and-wife team who build up a local reputation for good food. There is nothing wrong with that—it is very desirable. But the tenants want to be free to sell because of the increasing value and the lease allows them to do so. However, if the premises are sold to someone who does not run the business as well as the person from whom it was purchased, in due course there will be conflict over the licensing objectives. The position of the owner of the underlying asset is not properly safeguarded, and I therefore support the amendment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the last-minute intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, perfectly illustrates the problem with these four amendments. The issues he raises are contractual issues between landlords and tenants. He did not even suggest that they should be issues for licensing law. They are nothing to do with the objectives but relate to the commercial viability of the businesses.
	We believe that the licence holder's responsibility in respect of his licence is to the licensing authority. If there is any dispute or issue with the owner or lessor of the property, it is not an issue for licensing law. That is why it has not been included and why there is what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, calls a gap in the Bill. It is quite deliberate. The Bill improves on the current situation by ensuring that there is a clear focus on matters which properly concern the licensing regime.
	The current system ties liquor licences to the individual business in a particular premises. It makes sense for those with an interest in the premises, often pub companies and breweries, to be able to register an interest. If a pub manager leaves, a new justices' licence is required. But under the Bill, which splits the personal and premises licence, any pub-operating company will be able to hold a premises licence itself and designate managers as the premises supervisor. The Bill does not require that managers must hold the premises licence.
	Where pub-owning companies choose to delegate the responsibilities and duties attached to holding a premises licence to managers, they will still have access to information about authorisations, notices and applications relating to it. An owner of the premises can get the same information. The Bill provides that each licensing authority must keep a register recording all this information. It will be available for inspection by anyone, and copies can be supplied. To require licensing authorities to inform anyone with an interest—there is quite a wide range of interests—of almost any application or notice would make the system more costly, complex and time-consuming, and would damage the deregulatory benefits and savings which the Bill will bring. Notification can, and probably should, be a requirement of the contractual relationship between the operating company and the manager or the landlord and tenant. It should not be an issue for licensing law.
	The Bill sets out quick and easy procedures to deal with transfers and changes of premises licence. An interim authority notice can be given following the death, insolvency or mental incapacity of a licence holder. This reinstates the licence for two months, and an application for transfer can be made in that period. Clause 46(2) sets out those people who can give an interim authority notice. Because we are concerned with the need for continuity of business, it is intended that paragraph (a), which refers to a person who has a prescribed interest in the premises, will capture pub-operating companies and owners of premises. I do not know whether that goes some way towards satisfying the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale.
	Amendment No. 114 would replicate provision for some of those whom the Bill is already intended to cover. In the case of the death of the premises licence holder or where a licence is surrendered, if it is known who will take over a the business, a transfer can be applied for with immediate effect.
	It seems unreasonable to suggest that tenants who are premises licence holders, with whom the responsibilities and duties associated with the licence would rest, should be required to seek the permission of landlords to surrender those responsibilities. Notice of surrender is recorded on the register. Under the present justices' licensing system, there is no requirement to notify a landlord of a surrender of a justices' licence.
	The Bill offers protections for businesses, provides quick and simple procedures where changes are needed and requires licensing authorities to record and make available information about all authorisations and notices. Surely the Bill must be focused on matters that properly relate to licensing. It cannot be extended to cover contractual relationships between landlords and tenants.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, this is the second time we have gone over this matter. The Minister has put forward the Government's view that this should be dealt with through contractual law. We believe that on the face of the Bill there is a gap which, if filled, would help to further the licensing objectives. I believe that the difference of opinion on that will not be reconciled through debate. Therefore, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 92.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Clause 9 [Proceedings of licensing committee]:
	[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
	Clause 13 [Authorised persons, interested parties and responsible authorities]:

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Page 8, line 10, leave out "statutory functions" and insert "lawful powers"

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights places duties on public authorities to take measures to protect individuals from nuisance. Those obligations are currently binding on licensing authorities through statute and through duties of care in common law. Both legs of the law are subject to interpretation that gives effect to convention rights under Article 8. Statute is subject to interpretation in Section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the common law is subject to interpretation by the courts, which are public authorities under Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.
	However, the wording used in the Bill removes from its scope those common law duties of care, which are important tools through which the convention is given effect. It therefore excludes important aspects of the positive obligation on local authorities under Article 8 of the convention. The amendment would bring those duties of care back within the ambit of the Bill. The amendment, taken together with the amended licensing objectives, would ensure that local authorities had powers as well as duties to promote human rights, as set out in the convention. I am speaking only to Amendment No. 42. The others in the group are consequential. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, this group of amendments would substitute "lawful powers" for "statutory functions" in the definition that describes an environmental health officer in the subsections dealing with authorised persons and responsible authorities in Clauses 13 and 68. The amendments would supplement that change by defining legal powers as,
	"any powers, duties and obligations conferred by or under any enactment or statute, or by a decision of the Court".
	I do not understand what practical addition to the Bill the amendments would make. As I told the House previously, the Bill adopts the statutory definitions of individuals doing work related to the pollution of the environment or harm to human health—in other words, environmental health officers. Departing from accepted statutory definitions used in other enactments could risk confusion. To be clear, the Bill allows environmental health officers, who often have responsibilities and expertise relating to noise pollution and health and safety, to be consulted and to make representations when an application for a premises licence is made. It also brings them within the definition of an authorised person, so that they will enjoy the powers of entry and inspection described in the Bill.
	I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, can accept that his amendment could cause confusion. I therefore ask him not to press it.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the thoughtful way in which she responded to the tone of the amendments. In light of what she said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 43:
	Page 8, line 17, at end insert "or any other person who, or organisation which, the licensing authority considers may be affected by the use of the premises for licensable activities"

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 44 to 49 and Amendments Nos. 130 and 131. I shall speak to the subsequent ones on a group basis.
	Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 are consequential on Amendments Nos. 43 and 46. The local authority has a duty under the convention to hear the representations of those whose rights may arguably be affected by its decision. The duty arises under the doctrine of proportionality that underlies the whole convention. The Bill will require the local authority to refuse to hear from those who do not fall within the definitions of interested party, even if their convention rights were affected by the decision.
	Who might be affected by that decision? Article 34 of the convention defines such a person, who is called a "victim", as,
	"a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be a victim of a violation of the Convention"—
	that is, anyone who has good grounds to claim that their rights are affected by the decision of the licensing authority and any non-governmental organisation, including a business, in the same position. That is a much broader class of person than is to be found in the definition in Clause 13. It specifically includes non-governmental organisations that are not businesses.
	Section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 allows any person who is,
	"a victim for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention",
	to rely on their convention rights in any proceedings involving a public authority, including licensing decisions, or to bring proceedings against the authority in the courts on human rights grounds.
	It is difficult to list all the rights that may be at issue in licensing, but there is sufficient case law to suggest that the following may, but not necessarily will, be engaged. Article 2 refers to safety issues, and by extension to crime and disorder; Article 3, to positive obligations to prevent inhuman treatment caused by noise, for example; and Article 6, to common law rights in nuisance and negligence. Articles 8, 10 and 14 refer to non- discrimination with respect to convention rights afforded, particularly in the case of qualified rights. Article 1 of Protocol 1 is also relevant.
	Amendments Nos. 43 and 46, and the amendments consequential to them, would ensure that all those who have convention rights that may be violated by the licensing authority have the right to make representations in licensing matters. The safeguard against abuse of rights of audience lies in the right of the licensing authority to make the decision as to whether the rights are engaged, which is provided by the amendment, and in the rights to shut out frivolous and vexatious representations in other parts of the Bill.
	I have tabled Amendment No. 44 because Clause 13(3) introduces unnecessary restrictions on which members of the public can object to the grant of a premises licence. Under present law, it is not necessary for a person to live in the vicinity of the premises for his objection to be considered by a local authority or the licensing justices. Any person who can show that they,
	"may be affected by the use of the premises for licensable activities",
	should have the right to be heard. That is an elementary requirement of natural justice as well as, arguably, an entitlement under Article 6 of the convention on human rights. The amendment is designed to remove that restriction.
	The removal of the restriction is particularly important considering the requirement that the Bill imposes on licensing authorities to grant in the absence of "relevant representations", whether or not the grant of the application would promote the licensing objectives or be in accordance with the authorities' licensing policy or be consistent with the Secretary of State's guidance. The right of an "ordinary person" to object to the grant of a premises licence will be especially important, given that he has no such right to object to the grant of personal licences in Clause 118 or the holding of temporary events in Part 5.
	Amendments Nos. 45 and 48 make reference to a change to a "person or" body. They would allow individuals to represent people—in other words, a solicitor, a friend or a relative. Amendments Nos. 47 and 49 relate to the understanding that the Government accept that other organisations, such as schools, trade unions and hospitals, can make representations in their own right. I believed that the Bill would be amended to make that clear on Report. If that is not done, a BUPA hospital, being in "business", could make representations, for example, while an NHS hospital could not. No such amendments seem to have been tabled, so I have tabled my own as a probing amendment, to find out what the state of play is. I beg to move.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, will the Bill comply with the ECHR without these amendments? Might there be problems that give rise to expensive litigation?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Bill complies with the ECHR without the amendments. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has received representations about some of these matters. It has not found any problem with the provisions as they stand.
	As noble Lords know, an interested party is a local resident, a residents' association or a local business or trade group that may want to make representations on applications for premises licences or club premises certificates, or may wish to apply for a review of the licence or certificate. If we expanded those groups too far, we would add to the bureaucracy of the system, which would put a burden not only on industry but also on licensing authorities. Simplicity is something that we should value.
	Having said that, one of the Government's aims in introducing the legislation is to give a real voice and influence to local people who are affected by the decisions taken. It is something that industry understands but about which it has legitimate anxieties, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is aware. Local economies need the investment and employment that the hospitality and retail businesses bring, but those businesses also need some certainties if they are to make the investments needed. We therefore need to strike a balance in the Bill.
	Some of these amendments would include persons, organisations or bodies representing persons that,
	"the licensing authority considers may be affected by the use",
	of the club or licensed premises. That is an open-ended definition that means that none of us could be completely sure today who might be given those rights. No person or organisation would know if they were legitimately entitled to make representations until a judgment had been exercised by the licensing authority after the representations had been made.
	I would certainly find it extremely irritating to have considered myself entitled to make representations or seek a review of a premises licence, only to be told by the licensing authority after I had collected all the necessary evidence that I was not such a person. We need clarity in the rights we describe.
	I appreciate that some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, believe that the impact of new licensed premises may fall as hard on those living near to taxi ranks or fast food outlets some distance away, where customers may go after visiting the licensed premises. I would need to know how what distance from the premises is intended by the amendment, and how anyone beyond a certain distance would be supposed to show that the problems related to one licensed premises rather than another.
	If we are talking again about cumulative effects, that is a matter to be addressed holistically and broadly, as our debates have already shown. Licensing can be only one strand of a more complex approach. It is not a panacea. Other mechanisms in the Bill provide the necessary protections. We need simple and clear definitions which allow people to know where they stand and which strike the right balance.
	I must make absolutely clear that a person living in the vicinity of the premises or club in question may be represented by any other person. He can ask his solicitor to do so, or a friend, his local councillor or his Member of Parliament. Nothing in the Bill prevents him nominating any personal representative to represent his views. So it is wholly unnecessary to include a person in subsection 3(b) of Clause 13.
	A body is included in subsection (3)(b) to ensure that residents' associations have a voice without the need to take direct instructions from their members on every single matter. I understand the desire to include the term "organisations" to cover the eventuality that a school, church or hospital might be free to make representations. However, as I said at Committee stage, I do not believe that that is necessary. Any parent or governor living in the vicinity of the premises can make representations. Similarly, any member of the hospital staff in the vicinity can do so, too. Of course any member of a church living nearby can do so. We really do need to try to avoid over-complicating the arrangements. It is right that businesses are included because livelihoods may be affected. They should have a say in developments.
	So, in striking a balance between the needs of the community for investment and employment and the need for security and peace, we have to focus on what is necessary and proportionate. I think that the definition in the Bill of interested party does that; we believe that it gives a proper voice for the community directly affected by the premises involved.
	One of the Bill's merits is that it gives local residents a voice whereas in many circumstances they are currently denied one by the existing legislation. Against that background, I have to resist the amendments and ask that they not be pressed.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the comprehensive way in which she responded. I am grateful also for her indication on where she thought the amendments unnecessary as the rights are already enshrined in the legislation. I hope that I may be allowed to ask her whether I was wrong in thinking that the Government were thinking of providing extra definition, to which I alluded in the final group of amendments that I quoted, in relation to which they may table further amendments. Perhaps the Minister said that she would consider it and the Government have decided against. Perhaps I misunderstood the Government's previous intention.
	The Minister knows that my particular concern is the swathe of entertainment area that stretches between Bayswater and Covent Garden, particularly in the context of Soho. When I was the Member of Parliament for that constituency, 20 times as many people worked in that constituency as in the average seat. If I shook the hand of someone on the street, I had a one in 15 chance of shaking the hand of someone who had the right to vote for me. I think that the Minister is being perhaps a little optimistic if she assumes that the organisations to which I referred would automatically have someone who was resident in the vicinity.
	One has only to quote the figure of 750,000 people coming into work each day in the City of London and south Westminster to be perfectly clear that they are all coming from outside the constituency itself. The working population of the constituency is about 50,000, so 700,000 are commuters. Unless I misunderstood the Minister, none of them is eligible to make a complaint on behalf of the institution. So I can see cases in which, although the Minister is confident that someone in the organisation could make representations, organisations are "disenfranchised" under the law simply because they do not live in the vicinity. If I have misunderstood what the Minister was saying, I am entirely happy to be corrected.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first question, if I gave the impression that we intended to make changes to the clause in terms of further definitions, I am very sorry because I do not believe that that is our intention. On the second question, it is perfectly clear under the Bill that any business can make representations. So the employers of those to whom he referred, whose hands he shakes, can make representations. However, if those people are commuters coming in who do not live in the vicinity, they obviously cannot do so as residents. I think that that is the point at issue, is it not?

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, as I understood it, the Minister was explaining why businesses were in the Bill and other organisations were not—in order to keep matters simple. I understood from her reply that those other organisations would be represented by individuals who had an association with them. If she is saying that they do not need to be local residents, then I have no problem. However, if any organisation that wishes to make representations has to produce a resident in order to make it, that would seem to be a deficiency.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, any other organisation can make its representation through the responsible authorities. So they can approach the police, the environmental health officers, the fire authority and so on. There are so many routes through which people can make representations that I really do not believe that this is a problem.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am a bear of very little brain. The fact that I had some difficulty in being absolutely certain about the rights of people in the vicinity of premises suggests that it is just possible that others living in the vicinity of those licensed premises may have the same difficulty in being absolutely certain of their rights. However, I take the noble Baroness's word absolutely at face value—I greatly respect the manner in which she has conducted the Bill—and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 44 to 49 not moved.]

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 50:
	Page 8, line 30, at end insert—
	"( ) the local planning authority within the meaning given by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) for any area in which the premises are situated,"

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I apologise and ask noble Lords' indulgence for saying a brief word on Amendment No. 50, which we have already debated. The Minister, and indeed noble Lords who have been following these proceedings, will recall that Amendment No. 50 was placed in the middle of a previous group. In my innocence as a novice in your Lordships' House, I felt that it would be wrong to speak to the amendment—which embodied the Government's commitment in Committee to bring forward an amendment at Report stage—in advance of the Minister speaking to it herself. As soon as she sat down, my noble friend Lady Buscombe withdrew the lead amendment, which she had moved. It was therefore not possible to comment on government Amendment No. 50. I shall speak very briefly to it. However, as it was a central issue in Committee, I should like to have the opportunity to react to it.
	The draft guidance was a big step forward in recognising that cumulative impact is a valid consideration for licensing policy statements and in the determining of licensing applications. Licensing authorities can consider if the granting of further premises licences would undermine the licensing objectives.
	Cumulative impact would have to be addressed in the context of the individual merits of the application. That is the opposite of the way in which a local authority might wish to consider it; that is, the local authority might wish to consider the individual merits of a case in the context of cumulative impact.
	Saturation policies are not regarded as grounds to remove existing licences. The stress area policies of a local authority such as Westminster, and the way in which they are applied, very generally conform to the view of saturation areas in the guidance, but they might require further development, refinement and justification for inclusion in the licensing policy statement.
	The responsibilities of a local authority are many and varied. It is necessary that they are organised into departments and sections where the required specialist knowledge to carry out those responsibilities resides. A detailed understanding of licensing policy will not always be part of the knowledge base of officers in planning departments, environmental health departments or the council officers who are responsible for the day-to-day routine of processing licence applications.
	It is a matter to which we can obviously return on a future occasion, but it would be helpful if the Bill could allow for local authorities to operate as they do at present, with an officer of a licensing authority who takes no part in processing or determining the application advising those who do perform those functions what the authority's licensing policy has to say about an application. That has operated successfully for many years and it would be helpful if it could continue to do so.
	I apologise to the House for returning to the matter. I shall quite understand if the Minister does not give a detailed reply at this stage.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for apologising for returning to the matter at this point. It would, of course, have been open to him to speak to any amendment in the group when the group was discussed. As regards the point he made, the Government believe that they have made a considerable concession both in terms of the way in which the guidance has now been drafted and in making local planning committees one of the groups that can make representations. I have no doubt that, in taking on that function, planning officers will acquire the expertise that is needed. They will also work closely with officials responsible for licensing with regard to a planning issue and questions of saturation that may need to be discussed. I am confident that the system will work perfectly well.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 51:
	Page 8, line 31, leave out from "authority" to end of line 34 and insert "for the area in which the premises are situated"

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, Amendment No. 51, and Amendment No. 53 which is grouped with it, are important amendments if local democratic accountability is to be preserved. The Bill provides in Clause 18 that applications are to be granted in the absence of relevant representations made by an interested party or a responsible authority. The Bill requires licensing authorities to promote the licensing objectives as set out in Clause 4, and to have regard to the licensing statement and, as the Bill stands at present, any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
	It ought to be the case that a licensing authority should have the power to refuse an application for a premises licence in a case where the licensing objectives would not be promoted by a grant and/or where to grant the application would be contrary to the licensing statement or the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
	The licensing authority should therefore be entitled to take into account the licensing objectives, its policy and guidance, even where there are not relevant representations from interested parties. As the Bill was originally drafted, the licensing authority itself could make relevant representations only in its capacity as an environmental health authority under Clause 13(4)(d). Although we welcome the fact that the Government listened to representations made in Committee that the provision was far too narrow, and recognise that under government Amendment No. 50 a planning officer from a local authority will be able to make representations, we still feel that this is unnecessarily restrictive. Thus, either Amendment No. 51 or Amendment No. 53—I refer to the Minister's helpful remarks on Amendment No. 50 in this context—will enable the licensing authority to draw to its own attention, by means of making relevant representations, the impact of a grant upon the licensing objectives, its policy and central government guidance. I sought to illustrate the manner in which that might be done in my remarks on Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 in the name of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. This is an important issue. It must be right for the local authority to have a say, even where there are not relevant representations from interested parties. It would be otiose of me to repeat all that my noble friend said. However, I make it clear that we support very much Amendments Nos. 51 and 53.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the promotion of the licensing objectives underpins the Bill. The duty on a licensing authority is to carry out its functions with a view to promoting the licensing objectives. By way of general comment on these amendments, it is difficult to see why reference is made to enhancing the duty when the duty is an absolute obligation.
	Judgment of the merit of an application against the licensing objectives should be left to the experts. The experts on crime and disorder, and the protection of children from harm are the police, and so the police have a voice. The experts on public safety are the health and safety and fire authorities, and so they have a voice too. The experts on public nuisance are the local environmental health authority. It follows that they should have a voice too, and the Bill provides them with one. The experts in what it is like to live and do business in a particular area are local residents and businesses. As I have said on a number of occasions, we are providing them with a voice in the licensing regime for the first time.
	What we are not doing, however, is allowing the licensing authority to make representations in its own right. One of the fundamental principles of the Bill is that applications should be granted administratively where the experts have not raised any concerns about them. Where those circumstances apply, there is no reason for the licensing authority as regulatory authority to give a second opinion to those experts, and it would be wrong to give it that opportunity. These amendments would turn that state of affairs on its head, and the Government cannot accept them. That said, we recognise the need for licensing authorities to be able to address local issues effectively, and, as noble Lords know, we have brought forward a package to do just that.
	First, to give a further expert voice on the licensing objectives, particularly on issues relating to cumulative effect, we have added the local planning authority to the list of responsible authorities that the licensing authority must consult on an application. Under the Bill therefore, the relevant experts will have a voice, and the notion that the licensing authority will ever be in the position of being powerless to address a pressing local circumstance is, frankly, unrealistic.
	Furthermore, we have made it clear in the guidance that a licensing authority may include in its licensing policy statement reference to the cumulative effect of licensed premises, where such an effect can be demonstrated to exist on the promotion of the licensing objectives, and the fact that this will be taken into account in determining applications. It will then be open to, for example, the police and the environmental health authority to make representations concerning cumulative effect and its impact on the licensing objectives in relation to an application.
	If we accept these amendments, we drive at the very heart of the Bill, and there is no reason to do so, particularly in view of the additional measures that we have provided. We must remember that many people affected by the Bill are concerned, to say the least, by their fears—which I hope are largely unfounded—of local authority officers acting over-zealously or with scant regard for the real world. The amendment would exacerbate those concerns, and I very much hope that it will be withdrawn.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what she said. However, she did not explain precisely why, if local authorities have had such an officer fulfilling that role and therefore becoming expert in it with great effectiveness over many years, it is sensible to throw away that particular virtue. I will not go back to arguments about conservatism, but the fact remains that it is a tried and proven part of the licensing process that historically has worked well.
	I shall not engage the Minister in a Socratic dialogue about the particular kind of expertise that an officer who had historically fulfilled that role would have. However, I am quite certain that Socrates, in dialogue with her, would do an admirable job in regard to whether it was sensible to dispose of the person who had that expert quality.
	I have not consulted anyone else in the House before saying what I am about to say. As the resource is valuable under the existing system, is known to work well and does not seem, at least to me, to have any down side or disadvantage, it would seem sensible to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 98; Not-Contents, 97.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 53:
	Page 8, line 35, leave out "(other than the relevant licensing authority)" and insert ", including the relevant licensing authority,"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]

Lord Avebury: moved Amendment No. 55:
	Leave out Clause 13.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the scheme of these amendments is, first, to consolidate the definitions of "authorised persons", "interested parties" and "responsible authorities" into one new clause; that is done in Amendment No. 250, which replaces the existing definitions in Clauses 13 and 68. The Minister said a few minutes ago that simplicity is something that we should value. I hope that at least the concept of the amendment will be welcome to the Government.
	I hope that the Minister will pay a little attention to what I am saying. Since I am quoting her, she might pay attention to me. The concept of the amendments is to consolidate the definitions into one single definition and to avoid the duplication that is currently in Clauses 13 and 68.
	Secondly, the meaning of "authorised person" is extended to any officer of the local authority who is authorised by it for the purposes of the licensing objectives. That would enable the amendment to Clause 18, which ensures that an assessment by an authorised person and the consequent satisfaction of the licensing authority that the likely effect of the grant of the application would be to enhance the promotion of the licensing objectives are preconditions for the award of the premises licence. Although the noble Baroness earlier today again said that the promotion of the licensing objectives underpins the Bill, the functions of an authorised person and the responsible authority as the Bill is currently drafted are far more limited than that. We do not have a direct connection between licensing objectives and the actual mechanics of the Bill, which I seek to insert.
	The amendment to Clause 51 similarly ties a review to an assessment by an authorised person showing that the licensed activities enhance the promotion of the licensing objectives. We have the promotion of the licensing objectives written into the mechanics of the Bill and the functions of the authorised person and local authority. The local authority is made the "responsible authority" where it has any statutory functions exercisable in any area in which the premises are situated, in relation to the licensing objectives and not merely in relation to a subset of the licensing objectives—that is how the Bill is currently drafted.
	"Interested party" would be amended to persons and businesses in the "neighbourhood" rather than the "vicinity". That is because, so far as I am aware, there is no definition of "vicinity" anywhere in statute. The noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong. The word "neighbourhood" is used in, for instance, the Licensing Act 1988, the Health and Social Care Act 2001, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and a large number of statutory instruments. The courts would have less difficulty interpreting the word "neighbourhood" than when dealing with the new and untried concept of "vicinity".
	I have also taken the opportunity of having only one set of persons in the navigation authority supervising licensable activities and another supervising qualifying club activities, instead of the two sets of persons, as the Bill is currently drafted.
	The amendments to Clause 106 eliminate the "authorised officers" of the licensing authority, and use the same "authorised persons" who are to conduct the assessments under Clause 18, as amended, to assess the likely effect of a temporary event concerned with crime and disorder. I beg to move.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I do not propose to speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, although I support what he said. Four of the amendments grouped with this amendment—Amendments Nos. 188 to 191—are in my name and I hope that they will be supported.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for setting out the structure of this group of amendments. He rightly said that the most obvious effect of the amendments would be to remove Clauses 13 and 68—that would be done by Amendments Nos. 55 and 135—and replace them, through Amendment No. 250, with the new clause after Clause 187 in Part 9 of the Bill, which deals with miscellaneous matters.
	Clauses 13 and 68 set out the meaning of "authorised persons", "interested parties" and "responsible authorities" in two places deliberately. One is the premises licences part of the Bill—that is, Clause 13—and one is the club section of the Bill, or Clause 68. I refer to Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill.
	It is entirely deliberate that the Bill is repetitive in that sense. It is because the Government recognise the importance of the club tradition in England and Wales and the fact that different considerations apply in respect of clubs, which are essentially private premises, that the Bill seeks to preserve the distinction between them and those using other premises. The Bill seeks to reflect the fact that clubs attract different considerations and therefore makes different provisions for them. If we were going to adopt the structure of this group of amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, described it, we should do that far more widely than in relation to this point. We should in effect wipe out the special consideration of clubs. I wonder whether those who advised the noble Lord have thought of that.
	Clubs attract different considerations and we make different provisions for them. They must meet a series of conditions to qualify for authorisation under club premises certificates. That is why they are dealt with separately in Part 4. Where possible and where appropriate, that involves the same conditions as have been applied to licensed premises and qualifying clubs. But that is not always the case, and those who are responsible for clubs have made that clear to us. We should be very sorry to lose that distinction—it would damage a significant part of the structure of the Bill.
	In making the change to wipe out the distinction between premises licences and club licences, significant changes are then made in Amendment No. 250. The most significant of those was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who seeks to replace the term "vicinity" with the term "neighbourhood" when defining an interested party. I consider that to be misguided because I believe it could lead to an effect opposite to the one that he intends.
	The term "vicinity", in an unqualified form, was chosen deliberately to ensure that those who are likely to be affected by individual applications can have a say in those applications. However, those who are simply interested in an application without having an interest in it do not have a similar right. That is not the same as the legislative examples which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, quoted. "Vicinity" is a term that will be interpreted on a case-by-case basis. It will not exclude individuals who live a few streets away from the premises and are affected by the application from making representations. And, under certain circumstances, it could be interpreted to cover a neighbourhood or district if the case warranted that breadth of scope. It is chosen because it will allow for the circumstances of each application to be taken into account. That is what the licensing authority will do.
	There is a further effect of extending the definitions of "authorised persons", as set out in Clause 13(2)(d), Clause 13(4)(d), Clause 68(2)(d) and Clause 68(4)(d). But, to some extent, that has been pre-empted by the decision of your Lordships in relation to the previous amendment, and I shall not go into that any further.
	The additional amendments are concerned with right of entry. As they were not spoken to, as I understand it, by either the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, or the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, I shall, with their permission, not refer to them.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am disappointed. To start at the end of the noble Lord's speech, I did refer, in allusion, to the responsible officers mentioned in Clause 106, together with the responsible persons, who are dealt with elsewhere in the Bill. I did so only to say that it was useful to have one power to appoint those persons for the different functions that they have to exercise in Clause 106, as for those covered earlier in the Bill. It seems to me normal that local authorities should have the power to appoint a person who does not have a function different from that of the officer who is to deal with the duties exercisable under Clause 106.
	The noble Lord believes that the term "vicinity" is more flexible than the term "neighbourhood". He says that a person who is a few streets away may still be able to make his case and have it heard. But the point about that is that he will not be sure of it. The term "vicinity" introduces an uncertainty which I am afraid may lead us into trouble. Many people who are several streets away from a premises may wish to exercise their right to object, and they will not know whether they have the right to a hearing until someone interprets the term "vicinity". They will be in the position to which the noble Baroness referred earlier of people being aggrieved because they find that they do not come within the scope of the Bill when they feel that there is every reason for their representations to be heard.
	Therefore, I shall certainly consider what the noble Lord said about the preference for the term "vicinity". However, as I see it, because the term "neighbourhood" has a statutory ancestry and can be easily interpreted by the courts, people would know more readily where they stood in terms of their right to make objections.
	With regard to the noble Lord's first point concerning the separate treatment of clubs and licensed premises, nothing in my amendments would affect that. I have not sought to change any of the provisions in Part 4; I have sought only to ensure that the same powers of the local authority apply to clubs as to licensed premises and that the authorised persons are defined in the same way in relation to both sets of conditions.
	I believe that my amendments would greatly simplify the scheme, and they would have the effect, which I have already mentioned, of ensuring that the licensing objectives are fully incorporated into the roles of the authorised persons. However, I am sure that I shall not convince the noble Lord at this stage. Therefore, I shall take away what he said and consider whether or not, in the light of the previous amendment agreed to by the House, it may be advantageous to bring back the matter at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 15 [Meaning of "designated premises supervisor"]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 56:
	Page 9, line 8, leave out from "individual" to end of line 9 and insert "who has been nominated as the premises supervisor by the applicant for or holder of the premises licence and who has consented to act as such"

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 56, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 57, 58, 71, 73, 74, 79, 95, 104 to 113, 119, 121, 237, 241, 266, 269 and 274 to 279. I shall be brief.
	First, I thank the Minister for kindly affording us a meeting in relation to this and other subjects with regard to the Bill. The issue of the designated premises supervisor is very important. We had a full discussion with the Minister and the Secretary of State. However, I am sorry to say that we were obviously still not satisfied and have therefore brought forward this large group of amendments.
	In Committee, I pointed out that the designated premises supervisor had no functions or duties in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that the designated premises supervisor would normally be the person responsible for day-to-day management of the premises. That may or may not happen in practice but there is nothing to stop a premises licence holder from appointing someone who has nothing to do with the premises as the designated premises supervisor, provided that that person has a personal licence. Indeed, it would be open to a chain of pubs to appoint a director of the main board as the designated premises supervisor of 200 pubs, and he could not possibly have time to take any part in the management of any of those premises. The designated premises supervisor need have no connection whatever with the relevant premises.
	However, under the procedure in the Bill, a vast bureaucracy is being created, built around the designated premises supervisor. A premises licence must always specify the designated premises supervisor and, if there is a change in the identity of the designated premises supervisor, an application must be made to the licensing authority for a variation of the premises licence to specify another individual as the designated premises supervisor.
	That will involve expense not only by the holder of the premises licence, who must prepare the relevant application and pay the fee, but also by the licensing authority, which must consider the application and then give notice to the chief officer of police for the relevant area of the application in order to give that officer the opportunity to object to a variation of the premises licence so as to prevent the appointment of a new premises supervisor. The chief officer of police will incur some expense as well. This vast bureaucracy is being created solely for the purposes of generating hot air about someone who has no functions and no duties in the Bill.
	We also question why the chief officer of police for the relevant area should have a specific right to object when there is a change of premises supervisor. What possible grounds could he rely on in support of his objection when the designated premises supervisor has no functions or duties? I appreciate that if a drug dealer is appointed as the designated premises supervisor of a pub well known for peddling drugs, the chief officer of police may well want to object, but he already has that power under Clause 50.
	Under that clause a responsible authority, which includes the chief officer of police, can apply for a review of the premises licence. On such a review the licensing authority has power under Clause 51(4) to remove the designated premises supervisor. The chief officer of police already has power under this clause to object to the designated premises supervisor. I cannot see why he should have this further power and the right to be notified whenever there is a change in the identity of the designated premises supervisor.
	This procedure, which must be adopted whenever there is a change in the identity of the premises supervisor, creates unnecessary bureaucracy for no useful purpose. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we cannot add anything to that. We support these amendments.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we debated this matter at length in Committee and we have talked about it since—clearly to inadequate effect. There are different approaches that involve either the removal of the concept completely or the removal of the requirement to include and therefore to vary details in the licence itself, or which reduce the police powers to intervene. The different amendments in the group take alternative views. They could not all be adopted. Decisions would have to be taken as to which of the varied approaches could be adopted, even if we were inclined to assent to them.
	For example, it is proposed that the premises licence holder would be required to notify only the licensing authority of the change, but not the police. The licence, or a part of it, would not be sent for amendment. The police would have no entitlement to object to the new premises supervisor in any circumstances.
	The Government have made their position clear on the issue. The approaches mentioned in this group of amendments weaken the provisions in the Bill which are intended to promote the prevention of crime and disorder. They are done so at the request of and on agreement with the Association of Chief Police Officers. The designated premises supervisor is an important safeguard, and one that will be vital for the police and other enforcement agencies. It is not burdensome; it is not huge bureaucracy. The process involves a straightforward and transparent notification.
	The alternative approach avoids the specification of the new premises supervisor in the premises licence itself. In doing so, the balance we seek between reduced bureaucracy and effective public protection slips towards the vested interests of the retail, hospitality and leisure businesses.
	Under the Bill, the transfer into new premises of a new designated premises supervisor would be achieved by the simple notification to the police and application to the licensing authority when the individual arrives. It involves the submission of only part of the licence—a schedule, which is probably only one sheet of paper. It is not burdensome; it is not bureaucratic.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, argued that the designated premises supervisor has no functions under the Bill, and that he could live at one end of the country while the pub was at the other. That is true in theory, but it would be an astonishing risk for any business to take. If there was no controlling manager acceptable to the police, can it be doubted that at the first sign of trouble the police would seek a review of the licence and that the licence itself would be in jeopardy? The enforcement agencies need to have confidence in the managers of premises where alcohol is to be retailed. They need to know where to go and where the buck stops.
	Under these arrangements, the amendments would deny the police the right to intervene at all and the premises licence itself would not require any details of the designated premises supervisor upon it. Therefore, even in the exceptional circumstances for which the Bill allows, the police could not raise their concerns that a particular individual at a specific premises could undermine the crime prevention objective. For example, a certain holder of a personal licence may have a record involving convictions for possession of drugs but has retained his personal licence. He arrives at a pub that has some history of drugs problems. Should not the police have a right to intervene? Would it be in the public interest to deny them that right? The amendments would.
	We do not want routine interventions which would undermine the portability of the personal licence. We believe that the Bill prevents that by focusing only on exceptional circumstances. We are determined to ensure that representations are only made by the police in genuinely exceptional circumstances. The draft guidance states that if a licensing authority believes that the police are routinely making representations on un-exceptional grounds, it should raise the matter with the chief officer of police. However, we must not allow the vested interests of business to outweigh the real and proper concerns that ACPO and others in the police service have expressed.
	We support the desire to minimise bureaucracy. We believe that the Bill goes as far as it possibly can in that respect. The amendments fail to recognise the key importance of the designated premises supervisor in respect of the premises licence and the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed licensing regime. I understand the desire to avoid the need to vary the premises licence when a new individual is to be specified, but we have already made it plain that only the part of the licence which gives these personal details must be sent in.
	The Bill deals with the change of the designated premises supervisor in a different way from other variations. These amendments still require the sending of a notification and I presume that some acknowledgement or receipt would have to be transmitted back. So I ask: what would be gained in terms of saving on bureaucracy, compared with the risks of crime and disorder that would flow from these amendments?
	The provisions for the review of the premises licence are a powerful means of securing the promotion of the licensing objective. They are reactive provisions which are designed to deal with problems as and when they arise. We need to recognise that exceptional action should be taken when a particular personal licence holder marries up with a certain set of premises and produces a damaging mixture.
	After a review, the licensing authority may take any necessary steps for the promotion of the licensing objectives. One of those steps could be the removal of the designated premises supervisor. Far from being disadvantageous to the industry, I suggest that these arrangements work in its favour. Often, problems that arise at licensed premises are likely to be associated not with the activities that take place there, but with the actions or omissions of the designated premises supervisor. We offer the option of removing the individual concerned, rather than applying potentially restrictive or burdensome conditions to the licence by suspending it or revoking it altogether. The tiny saving that would be brought about by these amendments in terms of bureaucracy is simply not worth the candle, compared with the lack of protection of the public in terms of crime and disorder. I very much hope that these amendments will not be pressed.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I hear what the Minister has said in his full response. We have argued the case. Both sides have worked hard to try to persuade the other, without success. What the Minister said about the Association of Chief Police Officers supporting the Bill as drafted was interesting. The Association of Chief Police Officers was keen for broadcast entertainment to be regulated, but its views were ignored in that regard.
	We feel strongly about the matter. We have not been convinced that the amendment would in any way weaken the provision of the Bill designed to prevent crime and disorder, because Clause 50 is alive and well to allow for a review of the premises licence. I think that it is time to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 56) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 101.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]

Lord Lea of Crondall: moved Amendment No. 59:
	Page 11, line 5, at end insert—
	"( ) where the relevant licensable activities include the supply of alcohol, a statement that the applicant will—
	(i) not require anyone employed to work at the premises to work, without their prior consent, different hours as a result of the new licensing regime implemented by this Act;
	(ii) financially compensate anyone employed to work at the premises for any increase in antisocial hours worked as a result of the new licensing regime implemented by this Act; and
	(iii) if requested to do so by anyone employed to work at the premises who finishes work between 11 p.m. and 6 am, pay the fare of a taxi or minicab to the person's usual home address,"

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I apologise for tabling this amendment on Report, but I could not attend when it was down for consideration in Committee. There are three main areas of concern in the employment field. The first is requiring anyone to work different hours as a result of the new licensing regime; the second is the need to financially compensate anyone employed in anti-social hours as a result of the new regime implied by the Bill; and the third is the difficulty of getting home in the middle of the night. We can all see the social and safety consequences involved; hence the proposal that there should be transport by taxi home.
	This is a probing amendment in the sense that the whole territory is tied up with current employment law. It would be a useful start to have a definitive statement outlining the extant legal provisions covering the sort of questions that concern industry staff as reflected by their trading representatives. Those endeavouring to represent people in the field find it notoriously difficult to ensure that the quality stipulated in contracts of employment is observed. For example, in well-recognised national chains with very high reputations among customers, it can be quite normal to tell staff members at short notice that they must work on a Sunday or throughout Saturday night. Technically, it may be possible to make such demands under a contract of employment. But, even if it is not, only a brave man or woman would say, "I will not do it".
	The reason for increasing the amount of legislation in this field—the National Minimum Wage Act, the working time regulations, health and safety regulations, and so on—is that employers exercising best practice can be, and often are, undercut by those who would otherwise fail to observe best practice. We are all producers and consumers at some time. We all recognise the legitimate requirements and interests of employers as well as employees. But the quality of contracts of employment is important to everybody, whether here in Parliament or in a car factory. Bar work is a notoriously fluid job market. Students can easily work at night, by definition. Many work in bars in London with a work permit status, which is in question.
	The hospitality sector is very large. The bar, pub and hotel industry is one of the biggest sectors in the country and employs 1 million people. It is astonishing that changes in the culture and context of the employment structure towards 24-hour opening—it is already well over 20 per cent—have not been the subject of any discussion in any forum between the industry and the trade unions, or in a tripartite forum. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I do not think that I am.
	That leads me to question whether the industry is ready to agree guidelines on these matters. We often hear it argued that employers do not like regulation and would far prefer to act on a voluntary basis through a voluntary arrangement. What voluntary arrangement? There is no voluntary agreement. Where is it? When is it proposed to make one? That is the challenge. There is a coalition of the industry. We have all received correspondence from organisations ranging from the British Beer & Pub Association to the British Hospitality Association. But I do not think that there has been any tripartite meeting. Will my noble friend take on board that, given the situation with the Lords and Commons stages, there is now time to ask for a tripartite meeting to find out the legal position and whether there is a code of best practice? That would enable us to make progress in this field. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I sympathise with the intentions behind my noble friend's amendment. Nobody can argue against the need to provide adequate protection for employees. That is why the range of domestic and European employment protection law has been strengthened consistently over many years.
	The working time regulations set a minimum standard of employee protection that all employees must observe. Among other things, the regulations state that no worker can be forced to work more than 48 hours a week against his will. They also set standards for minimum rest breaks. The regulations represent a powerful safeguard against abuse by unscrupulous employers, but one that is balanced by flexibility. Individual employees may, if they wish, work longer hours than those stipulated.
	However, nothing in current employment law requires employers to remunerate employees with different rates of pay for what we might term "anti-social" hours. People are often surprised, for example, to learn that there is no legal requirement for an increased rate of pay, or other compensation, for working on bank holidays. That position reflects the view of this and previous administrations that, subject to certain minimum standards—in our time they are embodied in the working time regulations—terms and conditions of employment are primarily a matter of contract between the employee and employer.
	Employees' working hours form part of their contract of employment. Once agreed, the terms of such contracts are binding on employer and employee. Any subsequent changes must be negotiated and agreed between them. If an employer changes his employees' working hours without their consent, they can seek legal redress for breach of contract. So part of the protection sought by the noble Lord in his amendment already exists.
	As the noble Lord will recognise, employers need to attract staff of the right calibre and will frame the rewards that they offer accordingly. Except for chefs, of which there is a general shortage, there are no reports that the hospitality and leisure industry has any great difficulty in recruiting staff, although retention is sometimes a problem. That is often due to the image of work in the industry being in some cases short term. Many work for a limited time in the industry. It is an image that I know various organisations—the British Hospitality Association and the British Institute of Innkeepers, to name but two—seek to address. It is certainly an unfair image. Few industries offer the same equality and duration of opportunity as the hospitality industry.
	My noble friend will recognise that the Government wish to see best practice in employee protection widely disseminated. The Department of Trade and Industry has published several good practice guides. One of them, Creating a Work-Life Balance—A Good Practice Guide for the Hospitality Industry, is particularly relevant to this case. It makes clear that a positive approach to work-life balance makes good business sense for employers by producing better motivated and happier employees. It also has a role in attracting new employees to the business, improving productivity and reducing labour turnover. The guide was developed in co-operation with organisations in the sector.
	There is another factor to consider. It will be recognised that many employees in the hospitality sector work shifts. Let us not forget that we envisage, at least in the early days, that any extensions of licensing hours will be relatively modest in the vast majority of cases. But any extension is unlikely to provoke employers to seek any great increase in the workload of individual employees. It is likely, however, to increase employment opportunities within the sector, which we would all welcome.
	To sum up, provided basic minimum standards are in place, further protection, such as compensation for anti-social hours or taxi fares home, must be the subject of employment law and individual contracts of employment.
	Although I fully appreciate what my noble friend seeks to achieve with his amendment, the basic safeguards already exist in law. The Government are encouraging best practice to raise standards further. My noble friend suggested that a tripartite meeting should take place. In the context of the Bill, I am not in a position to comment positively on that. Of course the industry realises that when the Bill becomes an Act some significant changes will be implemented that we consider are overwhelmingly for the good of the industry and for the good of the wider community. Therefore, for the industry to seek to engage its workers fully in the implications of the changes is entirely desirable. We expect that to occur. In the mean time, the Government sustain their position in favour of establishing good practice. They hope and expect that the industry will follow those guidelines.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that disappointing reply. He acknowledged no new qualitative problems, except for a reference to new issues being created by this legislation. This is not incremental legislation; it moves us into a qualitatively different work culture. I repeat my request that my noble friend takes away the proposal that the Government convene a tripartite meeting—that is, a meeting with employers and unions—to draw up a list of the employment law matters that are affected, indicating where gaps may appear, and to rule nothing in or out of this field. The issue has not been the subject of scrutiny in this House and it should be examined during the Bill's parliamentary stages. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned until after Starred Questions.

Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 1.32 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to 3 p.m. for Public Business.]

Church of England: Sex Discrimination Act

Baroness Perry of Southwark: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they consider that an amendment is needed to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to remove the exemption of the Church of England from the provisions of the Act.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Section 19 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 exempts organised religions in the case of employment that is restricted to one sex to comply with doctrine or to avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of the followers of that religion. There are currently no plans to amend Section 19. However, we shall continue to keep the law as it applies to the Church of England under review, in the light of developments in European Union law.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply; it was not entirely unexpected. Does he agree that it is extraordinary that, in a country that has a good record on anti-discrimination legislation, the national Church—the established Church—is still able to deny to women the right not only to be promoted but to hold any of the many posts that are still advertised with the words "No woman need apply".

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am interested in the noble Baroness's question. Her original Question went wider than the question of the employment of women priests, and I took it to relate to the employment status of all priests, men or women. The details of the spread—if that is the right word—of unemployment of women priests are a separate issue, which was resolved in the Church of England by the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, will the Minister join me in sending greetings to Archbishop Rowan Williams at this moment of his enthronement in Canterbury Cathedral?

Noble Lords: Hear, hear.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the standing committee of the House of Bishops of the Church of England has indicated to the General Synod on more than one occasion that it agrees that there should be a review of the arrangements made by the legislation on women priests, once the Synod has received the final report of the working party of the House of Bishops on women in the episcopate and has decided what action to take on it? Does he agree that, in reviewing those arrangements, the Church will have to take account of the need not only to ensure fair and proper treatment for its women priests but to consider the position of those—including many women—who cannot, at this time, accept that ministry in conscience?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am happy to join the right reverend Prelate in extending greetings to the new Archbishop of Canterbury. We look forward to welcoming him to the House on, I think, 12th March.
	We are aware of the working party. It has wider terms of reference and covers issues such as freehold. I understand that there is an undertaking to report to the Synod and to have decisions made not later than 2006.

Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is rather odd that the Church of England "by law established" should be from law exempt? Will he urge the Government to lean more heavily on the Church of England to consider the experience of other Churches—not least those in the Anglican communion—of the leadership of women?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as an unbeliever, I am the last person to comment on issues between and within the Churches in this country. As far as the Government are concerned, the issue is not the internal organisation of the Church of England, established by law or not, but whether the conditions under which priests in any Church, whether women or men, are engaged—I cannot use the word "employed"—conforms to our legislation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson of Calow, knows, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 deliberately excluded the Churches, and we have no plans to change that status.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, there is still political involvement in the appointment of bishops, although it may not last for ever. Bearing that in mind, does my noble friend agree that the comment on the "Today" programme this morning by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford about seeing the appointment of the first women bishops within five years is welcome? If they were appointed earlier than that, many of us would welcome it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have two alternative answers to that. The first is that it does not follow from the Question on the Order Paper, and the second is that it is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I was partly responsible for the exemption in Section 19 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 as a matter of policy. I am surprised by the Minister's Answer, to which I listened carefully. Does not the Equal Treatment Amendment Directive of 2002 require the Government to make regulations? Will it not be necessary, in order to comply with the directive, to narrow the broad exception in Section 19 in respect of employment and occupation in the Church of England, as elsewhere? Will the Government consult on the regulations with regard to that issue?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Sex Discrimination Act implements the Equal Treatment Directive, but it is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said, that there have been amendments to the directive. The amendments cover a wider range of occupations, and we are taking legal advice on the matter. It is not yet clear whether the wider range of occupations covers the occupations relevant to the Question. If it appears that legislative changes are necessary, we will, of course, consult widely, as the noble Lord would wish.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to reduce the spread of bovine tuberculosis.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government are committed to tackling bovine tuberculosis. We are spending £35 million to £40 million a year on a programme of public health protection measures, cattle testing and research. Last week, we announced a review of the current TB strategy as an integral part of the animal health and welfare strategy.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Will he acknowledge that the disease is running out of control? There are more cases of TB today than there were of foot and mouth disease during the crisis. The noble Lord referred to yet another consultation, but we cannot wait until 2007 to tackle the cause of the disease. What will the Government do about it?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is partly correct. There is a significant number of cases of TB. It will not be fully established, until we have cleared the backlog of testing, how much the rise in TB has escalated. It was increasing at 20 per cent before the foot and mouth disease crisis. The testing programme was suspended during that period, and we are still catching up, although we have made substantial progress. It is a serious situation. About 4,000 herds are or have been at some time in the past year under TB restrictions. That amounts to about 4 per cent of the whole herd.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that almost all farmers and most people in the countryside think that badgers are the source of bovine TB. Given that there are no badgers in New Zealand but bovine TB is still to be found there—people are convinced that the possum is the source of the disease—does not that suggest that wildlife, whatever the species, is the most likely source of the problem?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, anyone who has had anything to do with this matter will know that strong views are held about badgers. Some feel that badgers are the sole cause of the transmission of bovine TB. We are holding a number of trials to assess the degree to which transmission takes place via badgers. My noble friend is well informed as regards the situation in New Zealand. However, scientific evidence also supports pretty strongly the view that much of the spread occurs from animal to animal in cattle. Regrettably, some of the spread in the northern regions relates to the restocking that followed the foot and mouth outbreak.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, given that the speed of the spread of the disease seems to be escalating and the fact that the Krebs trial was halted for years during the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, so much so that it had to start again practically from square one, are the Government considering a different line by reinvestigating the possibility of vaccination? The commercial development of an appropriate vaccine has moved forward since it was last considered by the Government.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, no reliable method of delivering the vaccine has yet been made available, either to cattle or to badgers and other wildlife species, although some progress has been made. The Krebs trial is intended to establish once and for all whether the growth of the spread of badgers is the main cause of the increased spread of the disease. To interrupt or change the trial would lead to our being unable to answer that question.

Earl Peel: My Lords, the Minister referred to the backlog of testing, inevitably brought about as a result of vets being taken off TB in order to deal with foot and mouth disease. Can the Minister give the House a firm assurance that the TB tests will be carried out as quickly as possible and that the necessary resources will be made available to ensure that they can take place?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have already made additional resources available in the form of £3 million specifically for testing. At the end of 2001 the backlog of tests stood at 27,000. That backlog has now been reduced to 7,500 tests, so we are making substantial progress.

Lord Christopher: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether any data have been collected on the incidence of bovine tuberculosis on non-organic farms as against organic farms? Furthermore, are there any data on the incidence of tuberculosis in cattle in areas where there is a large population of badgers as against those areas in which there is a small population?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in response to the second question, some information has been gathered, but it is not comprehensive. That is in part what the Krebs trial is directed to ascertain. On the first point, so far as I am aware, no reliable data are available which distinguish between organically reared cattle and others. Assertions have been made that organically reared cattle are less susceptible, although there is no definitive proof.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, while I am sure that everyone welcomes the Krebs trial relating to the control of tuberculosis in cattle, the results will not be known until around 2006. In the meantime, TB in cattle is spreading in what are in effect the non-controlled areas, causing great concern to dairy farmers. It has even affected those who restocked after the foot and mouth crisis, where there should be no incidence of TB at all. What is the Government's policy for dealing with infections occurring outside the Krebs trial areas?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the government strategy includes a new package on TB introduced last October. It is a combination of testing, restriction of movement and continuation of the trial. If we were to engage in badger culling outside the trial areas, it would distort the results. I know that pressure is being exerted by large sections of the farming sector to do that. However, I have to say that substantial pressure is also being exerted to maintain what is the current status of the badger, which is that of a protected animal. Noble Lords will know of recent incidents within the Krebs trial areas which makes this an extremely difficult issue on which to strike a balanced approach.

Hunting Bill: Effects on Shooting

Earl Peel: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as chairman of the Standing Conference for Countryside Sports.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Hunting Bill will compromise the sport of shooting.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as stated in the Labour Party manifesto, it is certainly not the Government's intention to compromise the sport of shooting.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that curt and direct response. He must be somewhat surprised that his right honourable friend Mr Michael, the Minister for Rural Affairs, yesterday voted against his own Bill in the Commons to vote down the use of terrier work underground. How will the Government reassure the tens of thousands of full-time and part-time gamekeepers who need to use terriers to protect not only game birds, but also a whole range of ground-nesting birds which, as research has demonstrated, now thrive only on areas where keeping is taking place? Is this not in fact another example of the Government perhaps not being as truthful as they might be? The Hunting Bill undoubtedly will have an adverse effect on shooting, contrary to what the Government have told us.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Bill is currently still being considered in Committee in another place. A number of votes have been taken in Committee and no doubt further votes will take place on the Floor of the House in another place. I think that we shall need to consider the Bill as it emerges from another place.
	As regards the amendment on terriers, it was clear that the intention behind the amendment was to outlaw the use of terriers in the course of hunting. It was not directed at the use of terriers in terms of preserving game for shooting. Furthermore, my right honourable friend Alun Michael made clear his position by saying that he would have to consider tabling amendments to protect the position of gamekeepers and to ensure that animal welfare considerations are applied consistently and in detail. Perhaps I may quote for the noble Earl the reaction to that statement received from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. It stated that it was "encouraged" that Alun Michael recognises that. The association is already in discussions to work out how best that could be achieved. We are intent on preserving the position in relation to gamekeepers.

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, can the Minister help with regard to the principles of the Bill on which, according to the Minister in another place, it was to be based? He has set a test according to the principles of utility which, as it stands at present, could not be met either by reared bird shooting or, indeed, possibly by catch-and-release fishing. If and when animal rights organisations turn their attention to those activities—they have already begun to do so—will those principles continue to be maintained by the Government or will they be jettisoned?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government have made it clear that they are allowing Parliament to legislate under a free vote on the issue of hunting with dogs. There is no intention on the part of the Government to bring forward legislation relating either to shooting or to fishing. The principles enunciated in the Bill therefore apply to the Bill itself and any implication that further action is to be taken on other sports is erroneous and has been directly denied in the Labour Party's manifesto.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that 73 per cent of foxes in Wales are controlled by gun packs and terriers; that is, by dogs? The Hunting Bill as presently drafted will direct that significantly less suffering must occur before registration of those packs can take place. However, as it stands, the proposed legislation on hunting with dogs will place impossible hurdles in the way of the operation of gun packs. Surely those hurdles must not be imposed, given the evidence on the pest potential of predation by foxes on farm livestock in Wales?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, once again I urge noble Lords to restrict their interpretation of the Bill until we receive from the House of Commons the Bill that your Lordships will have to consider. No doubt we shall have some lengthy discussions on the same.
	As regards terriers, I repeat that the intention with regard to terriers sought by the amendment tabled in Committee in another place—it was not a government amendment—was to stop terriers from being used in a process of hunting whereby the dogs would be used for catching. We are not talking about flushing out for shooting purposes. There will be some difficulties with definition and we shall need to clarify that, both in the Bill and in terms of government interpretation, should the Bill emerge in the form that the noble Lord anticipates. However, I urge all noble Lords to wait until we have the terms of the Bill.

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister is able to help me. He may not be aware that once I was a master of hounds. At the time I employed a terrier man on the Wednesday of each week. On each Tuesday and Thursday my terrier man was employed as a keeper. Can the noble Lord explain exactly what was the difference between what he did for me on Wednesdays as an employee of the hunt and what he did on Tuesdays and Thursdays—on the same land and using the same dogs against, ostensibly, the same foxes? Is that the kind of principle on which the Bill is based?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it had not escaped my attention that the noble Lord was once a master of hounds. It is clear that he is meticulous in his employment practices and feels the need to separate the job designation for Tuesdays and Thursdays from the one for Wednesdays. The point, however, is not what an individual is doing but what he is doing it for. If he is doing it in aid of hunting, the amendment relates to hunting with dogs. If he is doing it in support of game-keeping, different considerations apply which are not covered by—and which are not intended to be covered by—the Bill. My right honourable friend Alun Michael made that clear in his reaction to the amendment in another place.

Lord Carter: My Lords, if there is to be a distinction between a terrier used for hunting and a terrier used for other purposes, how will the terrier know?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as it is clear that a master of hounds did not know, I do not think we can expect a terrier to know.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, at the Committee stage in another place, Mr Michael admitted that the new Clause 11 would affect shooting. If that is the case, can the Minister explain why Mr Michael then voted for the new clause?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall have to check the voting list. My understanding is that my right honourable friend made it clear that this was not a government amendment and that the Government would have to consider its consequences. He said that he would have to table amendments to protect the position of gamekeepers, which is what I have said. If the purpose for which the terriers are used is not in relation to hunting with dogs, it should not be covered in the terms of the Bill.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I find the Minister's response odd. The Minister in another place brought forward his Bill and then supported an amendment that altered it. The Minister is suggesting that there will be another way out further along the line. I do not see how there can be. Either the Government believe what they are saying or they do not. Why did the Minister take the tack that he did on the recent vote?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I find the noble Baroness's question odd. I have often accepted arguments in Committee—many from the noble Baroness herself—that have asked me to look at the Bill again. I have brought forward amendments to Bills—accepted amendments to Bills—and I have voted for them. That is not unusual. Mr Michael said that, because of the amendment passed in Committee, he will now have to consider further amendments. It is normal committee procedure, both in this House and in another place, that amendments are made to Bills, some of which are supported by the Government.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that there is no question of compromising the sport of fishing? It is estimated that at least 2 million people in this country enjoy that sport.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hoped that I had made that clear. In their manifesto and subsequently, the Government have made it absolutely clear that they are not bringing forward legislation in relation to shooting or fishing. As far as I am aware—although greater experts on field sports than I will let me know if I am wrong—terriers do not play a significant role in fishing.

English National Opera: Dispute

Lord Jenkin of Roding: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any plans to intervene in the redundancy dispute at English National Opera.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, no, the Government have no such plans.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the Minister's reply is entirely as expected; I have seen the letter that she wrote to Equity a few days ago. Is it not now time for a radical reappraisal of the role of the English National Opera in bringing opera to a wider public, as suggested, for instance, in the excellent leader in The Times yesterday? If so, Ministers cannot wash their hands of this issue and their responsibilities. Will the Minister ask the Arts Council to institute a review, as a matter of urgency, before this great national institution shakes itself to pieces?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is fully aware that, because of the arm's length principle, it would be entirely wrong for Ministers to intervene in detailed management issues that are for the board and the senior management of the ENO. The noble Lord is absolutely right to imply in his question that the Arts Council has a role in this respect. I can reassure him that the Arts Council is in discussion with the ENO, its board and management, about these issues. Indeed, the management of the ENO and its board have undertaken detailed work which has shown that there are substantial problems with the financial model under which it has been operating for some time. The Arts Council is working with them to ensure that this is dealt with.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the Minister should know better than anyone in your Lordships' House that selling the arts to the public is an inherently risky business and that management, by its very nature, does not like risk. So, when things go wrong, management tends to look at the heart of the business, which is the risky part—in this case it is obvious—and usually it has the good sense to look elsewhere for cuts. In this case it is looking at the heart of the business—that is, the orchestra and the choir. Does the Minister agree that the only way this company will get out of trouble is by singing and playing its way out? Let us have less management and fewer accountants, if anything.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course the chorus and the orchestra are central to the success of the English National Opera, as they are in any other opera company. I do not think that it would be fair to say that the English National Opera does not take some justifiable artistic risks in the kind of productions it stages, nor would it be fair to say that it does not also meet the need for popular works to be shown in a city such as London. The ENO is currently looking at a whole range of different measures to ensure that its financial position can be put right. It is not looking only at the size of the chorus and the contracts of the orchestra.

Baroness Warnock: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are strong analogies between the state of the Royal Opera House 10 years ago and the present parlous state of the Coliseum? The difference is partly in the changes that have come about in the Arts Council during the past decade. Do not the Government recognise that they have some responsibility—in spite of the arm's length principle—towards preventing the demise of the great opera houses of this country? Do they not agree that it is no use insisting on the arm's length principle if what lies at the end of the arm—the hand, the operative part—has become so paralytically incompetent, as the Arts Council seems to have become?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I could not disagree more with what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said about the Arts Council as it is currently operating. It is not in any way paralysed and is undertaking its work in an excellent way. Ministers are constantly in touch with the Arts Council about the problems of the ENO and, indeed, about many of the other issues faced by the Arts Council. The noble Baroness is unduly pessimistic in suggesting that the great opera companies in this country are, in some sense, in demise. The Royal Opera House recovered very successfully from the difficult period it went through. The ENO will do the same.

Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this is a classic industrial dispute? On the one hand, the management want to get rid of what used to be known as Spanish practices in the chorus; and, on the other hand, Equity, the trade union, has put forward other proposals. Could not this matter reasonably be referred to ACAS?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. This is a classic dispute between management and the employees of a particular organisation, albeit a special kind of organisation. As I understand it, ACAS is willing to intervene if it is requested to do so by the parties to the dispute.

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, is the Minister aware—I am sure she is—that the more grand operas a company undertakes and the larger the house in which it performs, the more choristers it requires; and that a company which performs a large number of grand operas in a large house is unlikely to save much money, if any, by cutting the size of its permanent chorus and engaging freelance choristers where necessary? Is she further aware that the ENO's problems with its chorus are symptomatic of much wider and more fundamental problems of a kind that have bedevilled it intermittently since it moved to the Coliseum? We need an English National Opera company. If we cannot afford the ENO as it is, with its existing repertory policy and performing mainly in the Coliseum, will the Government consider setting up an inquiry, or asking the Arts Council to do so, to review what the role of the ENO should be within the national operatic framework, what repertory policy it should follow and where its home base should be?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there are many questions in what the noble Lord proposes. I do not agree that there is a need for the kind of review that he suggests. Substantial lottery funds are being spent on improving the Coliseum for use by the ENO. That project is working on budget and to time. I believe that the Coliseum is an appropriate venue for the English National Opera.

Nottingham City Council Bill [HL]

Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Liaison Committee: Select Committee Report

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 57) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
	Following is the report referred to:
	Select Committee on London
	1. The Committee has considered a proposal put forward by Lord Marsh for a select committee on London. A letter from Lord Marsh to the Chairman is printed as Appendix 1 to this Report.
	2. We consider that many of the issues raised by Lord Marsh are under active review by other bodies. Moreover, some of the bodies responsible for London are not directly responsible to the Government or, through Government, to Parliament; it is by no means clear to us to whom a report of a select committee might be directed. Furthermore the kind of inquiry envisaged by Lord Marsh seems to call for continuing review of a kind not well-suited to an ad hoc select committee. We do not therefore recommend the appointment of a select committee on London.
	Select Committee on the Equality Bill [HL]
	3. The Committee has considered a proposal put forward by Lord Lester of Herne Hill that certain of the matters addressed by his private member's bill on equality he considered by a select committee. A letter from Lord Lester is printed as Appendix 2 to this Report.
	4. Some members of the Committee felt that the inquiry proposed was sufficiently specific and time-limited, and that the subject would benefit from the taking of evidence in a select committee. On the other hand it was recognised that many government initiatives and consultations on equality issues wore currently envisaged—for example on age discrimination, disability discrimination, civil partnerships and the future shape of institutions to promote equality in a whole range of areas. Much of this activity was already so far advanced as to make duplication of effort by a select committee undesirable. We were also concerned at the length of any such inquiry, even if it were to be confined to the points listed by Lord Lester in his letter. We do not therefore recommend the appointment of a select committee on equality issues on the lines proposed by Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
	5. While we are aware that there is a general presumption in favour of the House's setting up one ad hoc select committee at any one time, we do not recommend a committee on either of the issues proposed to us. Moreover we recognise that there will be other demands on the resources of the Committee Office in coming months, in particular pre-legislative scrutiny as outlined in a memorandum we received from the Leader of the House (printed as Appendix 3) and the possible establishment of a sub-committee of the Economic Affairs Committee to examine the Finance Bill, to which the House has already agreed in principle.
	Appointment of two additional sub-committees of the European Union Committee
	6. The Committee has considered a proposal put forward by Lord Grenfell that two additional sub-committees of the European Union Committee be appointed. A letter from Lord Grenfell to the Chairman is printed as Appendix 4.
	7. Lord Grenfell's request is related to the recent review of scrutiny of European instruments conducted by the European Union Committee. We think that it would be premature at this stage to come to a view on Lord Grenfell's proposal before the House has had an opportunity to debate the European Union Committee's report and before the Government's response has been received. We recommend that a decision on this proposal be deferred.
	Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments—the "Sifting Committee"
	8. The Committee agreed that, with effect from the next session of Parliament, a select committee be established to consider the merits of statutory instruments. The Committee further agreed that the Procedure Committee be invited to agree the orders of reference of the Committee.

APPENDIX 1

Letter and Note from Lord Marsh to the Chairman

Just over a year ago, the Group arranged a structured programme of meetings with the following terms of reference:
	To inquire into the reasons for the delays in making progress with transport improvements in London, including particularly the institutional arrangements and decision-making processes, and to report.
	In the course of this programme we held a number of very informative meetings in this and other related areas, including the Minister for Transport, the Mayor of London and the Transport Commissioner for London. We have also received a considerable amount of written material.
	It became apparent that, to state the obvious, not only is transport one of a number of key elements in shaping London's future, but the unique scale, complexity and interdependence of the other key elements in the Mayor's draft London Plan raise fundamental questions about the ability of the current institutional arrangements and decision making processes to manage the project to a successful conclusion. These include:
	—the difficulty of achieving delivery of key infrastructure projects
	—the Mayor's lack of resources to ensure implementation of projects for which he is responsible
	—the slowness of the planning system
	—the lack of coherent priorities for resource allocation and institutional blockages likely to obstruct co-ordinated action.
	I am enclosing a note setting out these issues more fully.
	Members of the Group are aware that the draft Plan will be subject to an Examination in Public in the spring and that some of the responses to the Regional Government White Paper are likely to touch on some of these issues.
	We would stress that the Group is not concerned with the wider political issues of regional government. We arc concerned solely with the decision making process and the overall management of the London Plan in its totality to a successful conclusion.
	The Group is unanimous in its belief that there is an urgent need for a more systematic and authoritative inquiry into this issue and to that end I should welcome the opportunity to make a short presentation, with two of my colleagues, to the Liaison Committee in support of a Select Committee inquiry into the credibility of the structure envisaged in terms of financing and implementation of the draft London Plan.

Note by Lord Marsh

Why should London have special treatment?
	—London is the capital city—It has a population of 7.4 million—It has a GDP of £118.5 billion a year—larger than Portugal, Greece or Ireland—London is Europe's most successful city at attracting foreign companies—London's economic success is a major driver of the UK economy: failure to maintain its international competitiveness would be damaging for the whole of the UK.
	What special issues does London face?
	—Its population has grown by 600,000 since 1989: it is forecast to grow by a further 700,000 by 2016
	—London has the second highest unemployment rate in England (after the North east): the rate for ethic minorities is 13.5%
	—43% of London's children are living in poverty
	—with the average cost of a home over £250,000, people on moderate incomes—including key workers such as nurses and teachers—cannot afford to live in London
	—investment in public services—health, education, housing and transport—of £110 billion is needed over the next 15 years to make good past neglect and cater for growth.
	The complexity of the issues
	Responsibilities for London are diffused among a range of institutions, including Government Departments and the Government Office for London, the Mayor, Assembly and GLA functional bodies, boroughs, Corporation of London, agencies such as the Housing Corporation, English Heritage, Environment Agency, Learning and Skills Councils, NHS, Strategic Rail Authority, Royal Parks etc.
	Why is there a need for an inquiry now?
	—it is not at all clear who is responsible for delivering solutions to London's problems—there are obstacles in the way of action on many major issues from transport to building new homes to sports stadia
	—the Mayor has published a draft London Plan to set the future strategy for London's development, but lacks the powers or funding to implement it
	—there is no clear focus for decisions affecting London within central Government
	—there is no basis for determining what share of resources London should receive in relation to either its needs or the tax revenue it generates.
	Why a Select Committee?
	—there is an urgent need for an objective review of the arrangements for London government
	—the GLA Act is an unusual piece of legislation for which there is no precedent: there are issues of the balance between local and regional levels, funding, the uniqueness of London and its evident problems.
	—the All Party London Group has looked at these issues over a number of years, but they need to be considered on a more formal footing
	—legislation will be brought forward on regional assemblies: it is important that it should be informed by the experience in London and that
	—the opportunity should be taken to make any necessary changes in the London structure.

APPENDIX 2

Letter from Lord Lester of Herne Hill to the Chairman

My Equality Bill had its First Reading on Tuesday. The Second Reading debate has been arranged for Friday, 28th February.
	The Bill results from several years of study, review and consultation under the auspices of the Centre for the Public Law at Cambridge University, led by Professor Bob Hepple QC and his team. It seeks to create a coherent and enduring framework for tackling unjustifiable discrimination, and promoting equality of opportunity in a way that is user friendly. I enclose a copy of the Bill and of the Explanatory Notes.
	If the Bill is given a Second Reading I hope that it may be possible for it to be the subject of an enquiry by a Select Committee of the House to enable evidence to be taken from the various specialist bodies and interest groups.
	Thirty years ago, a House Select Committee considered a Private Member's Bill on sex discrimination. They heard a considerable amount of evidence on the extent and type of discrimination and produced special reports on proposed amendments and an analysis of the evidence they had taken (H.L. 81 and 104 of 1972–73). The work done by that Committee and by a Commons Committee was valuable in enabling the Government to develop policy on what became the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Subsequently, many Private Members' Bills on various types of discrimination have been introduced in both Houses, but no bill has sought to tackle all the main grounds of discrimination in a single measure, and neither House has considered the issues in the round.
	A Lords Committee would be able to address some of the matters addressed in the Bill that are of general interest and importance. For example, and these are only suggestions, they might take evidence and report upon the following issues: (a) whether British law should reach further than the EU equality directives which are to be implemented by subordinate legislation under the European Communities Act 1972, that is, beyond the field of employment; (b) the contexts in which it is legitimate to impose positive duties to promote equality of opportunity and treatment; (c) whether the grounds of discrimination should be closed or open-ended; (d) what the potential costs and benefits of equality legislation are to business and other; and, (e) what the potential advantages and disadvantages of employment and pay equity plans would be. On the other hand, it is doubtful whether it would be sensible for a Committee to consider whether there should be a single Equality Commission since this is already the subject of public consultation.
	The great advantage of this approach would be that it would enable the subject-matter of the Bill to be investigated in the light of evidence and consultation. That would advance public understanding of the issues and assist future development of legislation in this area.
	I should be grateful if my suggestion were considered by the Liaison Committee at the appropriate stage. If any further information is needed I would of course be delighted to provide it.

APPENDIX 3

Memorandum from the Leader of the House to the Committee

The purpose of this memorandum is to present the Liaison Committee with the Government's proposals for pre-legislative scrutiny of the first three draft bills to be published in this Session.
	Electricity (Trading and Transmission)
	We published on 30 January a draft bill to implement the British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements (BETTA). Copies are available in the Printed Paper Office.
	The House of Commons Trade & Industry Committee has decided to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny between now and Easter, and we do not propose anything further. That Committee is well placed to consider BETTA, having reported on Security of Energy Supply only a year ago (2nd Report 2001–02).
	Corruption
	We aim to publish within the next few weeks a draft bill to reform the law of corruption in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The bill would implement the White Paper Raising Standards and Upholding Integrity: the prevention of corruption of June 2000 (Cm 4759), which was based largely on a Law Commission report of March 1998 (No. 248). It would also make certain amendments to the limitation periods for civil actions relating to corruption in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to enable the UK to ratify the Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on Corruption.
	We propose to remit this to a Joint Committee of seven members of each House, to report by mid-July. We will table the first of the necessary motions shortly.
	Housing
	We will publish a draft Housing Bill later in the spring. The draft Bill will seek to improve housing standards by rationalising and modernising the controls on "Houses in Multiple Occupation", by giving local authorities powers for selective licensing of private landlords in areas of low housing demand, and by introducing a new evidence-based system for identifying unacceptable housing conditions. It will also introduce the "seller's pack" to the home buying and selling process.
	The bill will fall squarely within the remit of the House of Commons Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We anticipate that they will wish to conduct pro-legislative scrutiny, and we do not propose anything further.
	The Government will bring forward further draft bills in due course, and I will keep the Committee informed as to our proposals for pre-legislative scrutiny in each case.

APPENDIX 4

Letter from Lord Grenfell to the Chairman

Introduction
	As you know, the European Union Committee has recently concluded a review of scrutiny, which began last session under your chairmanship. The Leader's Group indicated that we should report our findings to the Liaison Committee. I accordingly enclose a copy of our report as published.
	This letter makes the case for an increase in the number of the Sub-Committees of the European Union Committee, on which the Committee would welcome the views of the Liaison Committee.
	I would be happy to discuss these issues further at the next meeting of the Liaison Committee on 17 February.
	Present work
	At present, the Select Committee itself performs the following functions:
	—Scrutinising the Commission's Annual Work Programme and in future possibly the Council's Strategic Agenda as well;
	—Hearing evidence from the Minister for Europe after every major European Council;
	—Hearing evidence from the Ambassador of every incoming Presidency;
	—Inquiring into matters which do not efficiently fall to an individual Sub-Committee, including major institutional questions (such as the report on the Second Chamber) and crosscutting inquiries (such as the review of scrutiny);
	—Approving reports prepared by the Sub-Committees;
	—Considering Government responses to our reports;
	—Appointing the members of Sub-Committees;
	—Appointing specialist advisers for the Sub-Committees.
	The Committee currently has six Sub-Committees, of up to 12 members. The individual Sub-Committees at present scrutinise policy in the following areas:
	—Economic and Financial Affairs, and External Relations (A).
	—Energy, Industry and Transport (B).
	—Common Foreign and Security Policy and International Development (C).
	—Environment, Agriculture, Public Health and Consumer Protection (D).
	—Law and Institutions (E).
	—Social Affairs, Education and Home Affairs (F).
	Drivers for change
	There are three drivers for change that have drawn us to the conclusion that the number of our Sub-Committees should be increased: our own sense of the case for change, given existing work; our own willingness to make scrutiny more effective by doing more; and external pressures.
	First, it is clear that our members feel that the present division of policy responsibilities means that each Sub-Committee is examining too wide a range of policy areas and cannot always give proper attention to them all. This is supported by the relentless increase in the number of documents deposited for scrutiny: since the Jellicoe review of our work in 1992 the number of documents deposited each year for scrutiny has increased from around 800 to about 1400. Our review has recommended that certain documents no longer be deposited for scrutiny but as these are documents which would normally be cleared by the Chairman's sift this change will not noticeably cut the workload of Sub-Committees.
	Secondly, our review has endorsed the fundamental principles on which we work, namely that documents are sifted by the Chairman and referred to expert policy Sub-Committees for examination. Our review nevertheless proposed new areas of activity designed to enhance and strengthen the House's scrutiny of European legislation. These will mean increased responsibilities for Sub-Committees including:
	—more regular scrutiny in advance of Council meetings, including of Government officials;
	—more short studies to complement major inquiries;
	—more emphasis on the follow-up of work;
	—more analysis of cost impact assessments;
	—more scrutiny of Comitology decisions;
	—more emphasis on ensuring that our work is of use to the House;
	—a greater effort to disseminate our work in the outside world.
	As we recognise that these are additional responsibilities, we have also accepted that we need to make the best use of the time we spend with witnesses. We nevertheless conclude that these new functions will, overall, mean an increased workload for Sub-Committees.
	Thirdly, there are outside pressures for change which, we believe, will lead to an increase in our workload. It is a clear and significant theme in the Convention on the Future of Europe that there should be an enhanced role for national parliaments in the European Union, to help redress the disconnection between the citizen and those governing the Union. There are already specific proposals for national parliaments to have a more formal role in monitoring subsidiarity; and suggestions that matters of Justice and Home Affairs might be brought under the Community method, requiring an enhanced scrutiny of an increased. number of documents. Enlargement too may mean more legislation to consider. There is also pressure for closer working with other national parliaments (through COSAC) and for a closer working relationship with our colleagues in the Commons, which we have welcomed.
	Our conclusion
	We have always kept under review the balance of work between our Sub-Committees and the number of Sub-Committees has varied over the years. As part of our recent review, we have considered whether the present balance of work between the Sub-Committees is right, given the likely future priorities of the Union. We have concluded that there is a prima facie case for increasing the number of our Sub-Committees and we make a proposal to that effect.
	One way of deciding which policy areas Sub-Committees should cover would be to examine the existing structure of Government departments. Another would be to mirror the Council of Ministers which now operates in nine formations (see annex). It would therefore be possible to argue that each Council should be scrutinised by one of our Sub-Committees, giving a total of nine.
	We rejected this idea, however, for two reasons. First, none of these existing Councils uniquely fits with the work of our Sub-committee E (Law and Institutions) which, chaired by a Law Lord, provides valuable scrutiny of legal matters across the board. Secondly, two of the Councils (Education, Youth and Culture; and Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs) do not in our view generate a full Sub-Committee's worth of scrutiny work.
	Eight Sub-Committees
	Our proposal is accordingly for eight Sub-Committees combining policy areas (such as environment and agriculture) but to a lesser extent than with our present six Sub-Committees, as follows:
	1. Economic and Financial Affairs (elements of existing A)
	2. Transport, Telecommunications and Energy (elements of existing B and D)
	3. General Affairs and External Relations (existing C)
	4. Environment and Agriculture (elements of existing D)
	5. Law and Institutions (existing E)
	6. Justice and Home Affairs (most of existing F)
	7. Social Policy and Consumer Affairs—including Healthcare and Education (most of existing D and F)
	8. Competitiveness and International Trade Policy - including the Internal Market, Industry, Worker Protection and Research (elements of existing A and B)
	Resources: members
	It would be our intention that these be the areas of primary responsibility for each Sub-Committee; but that, as now, flexibility is maintained to ensure the best deployment of resources by agreement between Sub-Committees.
	We would not, however, wish any expansion of the number of our Sub-Committees to take place unless a sufficient number of Members of the House were available with both the expertise and time necessary to do the work and put it to good use. We stress here that we believe expertise and commitment to be more important factors than party balance.
	We support the rotation rule in its present form although we would welcome a wider pool of names coming forward to allow us great flexibility in co-opting members to Sub-Committees. We have no wish, however, to increase the number of Members serving on individual Sub-Committees. Indeed, if there are to be more Sub-Committees, we would welcome smaller Sub-Committees, each with an expert and active membership. We also have no objection to members of the House serving on more than one Sub-Committee.
	Our six Sub-Committees currently have a maximum total membership of 12, meaning up to 72 Members of the House can serve on our Sub-Committees (although a few places have deliberately been kept vacant to assist flexibility if the overall number changes).
	It is our view that ten members is about the right size for a Sub-Committee (provided that all members are reasonably regular attendees). Dividing our current 72 among our proposed eight Sub-Committees would mean finding only eight more Members of the House to reach the desired number.
	Any change in the number and responsibilities of Sub-Committees would, of course, mean a consequential need to redistribute our existing members among a new series of Sub-Committees.
	Resources: staff
	As far as staff are concerned, the Leader of the House told us that he hoped the House would "will the means" to deliver the necessary resources for our work, although he stressed that the time taken to recruit clerks of a suitable calibre would always be a factor.
	We would not wish to see extra work being undertaken without the necessary resources to undertake it. Each Sub-Committee needs their own dedicated Clerk and Assistant. The work of our three new European Policy Researchers has assisted the Select Committee and the Sub-Committees but with only three posts it has not been possible to allocate a researcher to each SubCommittee. Our Sub-Committees accordingly remain much less intensively resourced than the Commons departmental select committees which they in some ways mirror.
	Conclusion
	We recognise that, even if there is acceptance of the need to increase the number of Sub-Committees, the need to find suitable members and recruit suitable staff may mean a timetabled introduction of any additional Sub-Committees. We nevertheless consider that the present division of work overloads the Sub-Committees; that changes are needed to enhance the House's scrutiny of EU legislation; and that existing problems will only get worse in the future. The time to act is now, to ensure that the House is ready to meet the new challenges we will face.
	
		
			 Annex   
			 Table 1: Distribution of Competencies 
			 Council of Ministers EU Sub-Committee UK Government Dept. 
			 General Affairs and External Relations A, E, C Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Dept. for International Development; Ministry of Defence 
			 Economic and Financial Affairs A, E HM Treasury 
			 Justice and Home Affairs E, F Home Office; Lord Chancellor's Dept. 
			 Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs D, F, E Dept. For Education and Skills; Dept. of Health; Dept. for Trade and Industry; Dept. for Work and Pensions 
			 Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry and Research) A, B, E Dept. for Trade and Industry 
			 Transport, Telecommunications and Energy B Dept. for Transport; Dept. of Trade and Industry 
			 Agriculture and Fisheries D Dept. for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
			 Environment D, E Dept. for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
			 Education, Youth and Culture F Dept. for Education and Skills; Dept. for Culture, Media and Sport; Home Office 
		
	
	
		
			 Table 2 
			 EU Sub-Committees Council of Ministers UK GovernmentDept. 
			 A—Economic and Financial Affairs, Trade and External Relations 2. Economic and Financial Affairs. 5. Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry and Research) HM Treasury; Dept. for Trade and Industry 
			 B—Energy, Industry and Transport 5. Competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry and Research); 6. Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Dept. for Trade and Industry; Dept. for Transport 
			 C—Common Foreign and Security Policy and International Development 1. General Affairs and External Relations Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Ministry of Defence; Dept. for International Development 
			 D—Environment, Agriculture, Public Health and Consumer Protection 4. Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs; 7. Agriculture and Fisheries; 8. Environment Dept. for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Dept. of Health; Dept. for Trade and Industry 
			 E—Law and Institutions 1. General Affairs and External Relations; 3. Justice and Home Affairs 4. Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs; 5. Competitiveness Home Office; Lord Chancellor's Dept.; Law Officers Dept. 
			 F—Social Affairs, Education and Home Affairs 3. Justice and Home Affairs; 4. Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs; 9. Education, Youth and Culture Dept. for Work and Pensions; Dept. for Education and Skills;  Home Office; Dept. for Culture, Media and Sport, 
		
	
	The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not covered in this table.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing Bill [HL]

Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 17.

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 60:
	Page 11, line 9, leave out "Regulations may" and insert "The Secretary of State must by regulations"

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government gave undertakings in Committee that certain matters relating to administrative and procedural detail would be set out in regulation, not on the face of the Bill itself, to ensure that, should changes be needed in the light of experience, we should not have to amend primary legislation.
	The Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform made helpful recommendations: first, that the Bill should provide expressly that regulations under Clause 17(5) and similar provisions must secure that there is an advertising and representations procedure; and, secondly, that there should be an express requirement for consultation in relation to orders under Clause 169. These amendments address those two recommendations.
	As a result of amendments in this group, instead of having a discretion, the Secretary of State will have a duty to make regulations providing for an advertising and representations procedure in relation to applications or, in the case of Amendment No. 134, a review following a closure order.
	Amendment No. 229 will insert into Clause 169 a requirement that before making an order to relax opening hours for special occasions, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as she considers appropriate.
	Amendment No. 228 has the same effect as government Amendment No. 229, so I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will not move the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am extremely gratified. I thank the Minister for having drawn attention to the fact that Amendment No. 228 is so close to the government amendment. I shall be content not to move it.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, my amendment is grouped with this one. The Minister has brought forward the issue of regulations and the amendments are very welcome. I had proposed an amendment relating to regulations which would be positive, not negative, in their resolution. I shall read the Minister's remarks carefully. At this stage, I shall not move my proposal on regulations. I shall study the matter closely and retain the hope of bringing back my amendments at the next stage if these provisions do not match up to our expectations.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I welcome and support the amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 18 [Determination of application for premises licence]:
	[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 62, I should inform the House that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments No. 63 to 66 inclusive.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 62:
	Page 11, line 28, leave out subsection (2).

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I shall not speak to Amendment No. 63, but shall speak to Amendments Nos. 65, 77 and 78. Thereafter, many of the amendments are consequential.
	Amendments Nos. 62, 67 to 70 and 72 deal with the possible violation of convention obligations by a licensing authority that could arise because the licensing authority is compelled to grant a licence pursuant to Clause 18(2) in circumstances when it believes that such a course of action may violate the rights of individuals—even when there are no relevant representations. The DCMS agrees that a licensing authority cannot be put in such a situation but points to Clause 18(1) as giving the licensing authority a power "not to determine the application" in such circumstances at all.
	But the convention obligation on the licensing authority is to make a determination and to reach a balanced decision—one that is proportionate, having regard to all the circumstances. The DCMS argument is unsatisfactory as refusing to make a determination is an interference in the rights of licensees and others. A determination, once an application is made, is required. That means that a hearing will have to be held and the licensing authority will have to consider representations from those who might be affected. In the light of all the material considerations, the licensing authority would have to make a decision and grant the licence subject to conditions, if appropriate, rather than rejecting or allowing it without modification. Then there would have to be rights of appeal against the decision of the licensing authority.
	Clause 18(1) makes no provision for all this. Furthermore, it does not allow the licensing authority to reach a proportionate decision; nor is it drafted with sufficient clarity for it to bear the meaning proposed by the DCMS. If Clause 18(1) were interpreted in the way suggested by the DCMS, that would give rise to great confusion about the role of Clause 18(3). There is correspondence on the matter—from a residents' association in Soho to the Government dated 2nd December 2002; a letter from the Joint Committee, dated 5th December 2002, to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone; Dr Howells' reply to the Joint Committee, dated 10th January 2003; and a further letter from the residents' association in Soho dated 28th January 2003. All contain important details.
	The amendments that I have identified propose to simplify the Bill by, first, leaving Clause 1 to have its original meaning, as set out in the Explanatory Notes—a decision that can be delegated to officers; secondly, to remove Clause 18(2) from the Bill altogether; and, thirdly, to amend Clause 18(3) to allow the licensing authority to determine applications in the light of the licensing objectives, which include the protection of human rights if the amendment to Clause 4 is accepted, and make decisions, including imposing conditions that are proportionate.
	Control over abuse of power by the licensing authority would exist through the rights of appeals by licensees, responsible parties and interested parties. If the earlier amendments proposed to Clause 13 were accepted—I believe that they were not—interested parties would comprise all those who have arguable rights to bring convention claims in the courts by virtue of Section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
	On Amendment No. 65, in relation to Clause 18(2), the Secretary of State's guidance should make it clear that the licensing authority has power to insert conditions that relate to securing aspects of the licensing objectives in accordance with matters contained in its statement of licensing policy. Otherwise, local licensing policies cannot be effectively met. The Civic Trust, on behalf of whom I moved this amendment, asked for support for that.
	Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 are marginally different. The licensing authority is required to give reasons for granting as well as refusing applications, whether or not there are relevant representations to ensure that those who did not or could not make relevant representations can know the reason for the decision and can challenge it if they believe that their rights have been violated. Such parties may have no rights of appeal to the magistrates' court, so their avenue of appeal will be to the administrative court by way of judicial review.
	I believe that all subsequent amendments are consequential, but if the Minister tells me that I am wrong, I shall have to leave without having spoken to them. It is my impression that they all refer back to the group that I have moved. I beg to move.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I have listened carefully to my noble friend's comments in respect of Amendment No. 62. He has not quite clarified the matter in my mind, or cleared away all my concerns.
	As I understand the matter, Clause 18 will require the authority to grant the licence, provided that conditions have been properly met. If we removed subsection (2), the whole matter could be reopened again, and we would create a situation in which a second bite of the cherry was possible. That is an issue on which I have had concerns in the past, and on which I shall be concerned with amendments that we have yet to debate. I may have misunderstood the thrust of my noble friend's remarks, but his amendment seemed to introduce a degree of undesirable uncertainty.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I have seen the correspondence to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred, and in particular the letter written by the DCMS to Jean Corston MP, who has the chair on the Joint Committee on Human Rights. That left me with some residual anxieties.
	The DCMS appears to rely entirely on the operating schedule to set these matters correctly in their context. The letter says that if,
	"the operating schedule does not address any of the matters it should address e.g. it does not set out the steps which the applicant will take to promote the prevention of public nuisance, the duty imposed upon a licensing authority in clause 18(2) to grant the application would not apply".
	I look at that the other way around. If the operating schedule complies with the licensing authority's requirements and does not contain anything that explicitly contravenes the licensing objectives, the duty to grant the application under Clause 18(2) applies. There is no explicit mechanism by which the licensing authority can take into account the matters, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, believes it should. The original correspondents—the Meard and Dean Street Residents' Association—first raised that matter with the Select Committee.
	Will the Minister explain the mechanism by which human rights considerations are to be considered, in the event that the operating schedule does not contain anything that explicitly contravenes the licensing objectives set by the licensing authority?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the amendments strike right at the heart of the Bill. They tip the balance too far in favour of the licensing authority. I was not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, intervened in that regard. They would increase massively the regulatory burden on the industry, the cost of running the system and the ability of the new licensing regime to promote the diversity of provision in the late-night economy that we hope will do so much to make our cities safer and more attractive.
	The amendments would remove from the Bill the basic principle that hearings must be convened only when relevant representations have been made. The Government firmly believe that, when the experts are satisfied that a particular application raises no issues that might undermine the licensing objectives, it should normally be granted automatically and administratively, with no costly or burdensome hearings required. Amendment No. 62 and those consequential upon it would totally undermine that principle.
	Let us examine the responsible authorities—the experts—under the Bill, who will have a voice on applications. They include the police, the fire authority, the local health and safety authority and the environmental health authority. It also includes, as a result of action we have taken to respond to issues raised in this Chamber, the local planning authority. At least two of those bodies— the environmental health authority and the local planning authority—will, in the vast majority of cases, be drawn from the same local authority as the licensing authority. Interested parties include local residents and businesses, and organisations that represent them. All those organisations and individuals can make representations on an individual application.
	Given the range of opportunity for concerns to be raised about an application, it is surely totally unnecessary for a hearing to be held where no representations are received from those quarters. In such circumstances, there is no reason for the public interest regulatory role of the licensing authority to come into play. The degree of scrutiny afforded by the Bill will ensure that, when problems arise, the chances of them not being picked up are absolutely minimal.
	In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I should say that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in its latest report on the Bill, found that the provisions which would result in the grant of an application for a premises licence where no representations are received were compatible with convention rights.
	Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 would allow the licensing authority, under circumstances in which no relevant representations had been made and therefore no hearing was required, to attach conditions to the licence that were,
	"consistent with the licensing policy and planning guidance",
	rather than only those that are consistent with the operating schedule. The amendments would have a serious deleterious effect, by discouraging the collaborative approach that the Bill seeks to engender between the police and the responsible authorities. After all, why would applicants go to the trouble in advance of talking to the police—for example, to make sure that they had got their application right—if the licensing authority could then impose conditions of its own? That makes little sense.
	Similar issues arise in relation to Amendments Nos. 69, 89, 101, 118, 141, 154, and 159, which would allow the licensing authority, when holding a hearing, to take into account, in addition to relevant representations, "any other material considerations". Again, the Bill is designed to focus on a clear and transparent set of licensing objectives. "Other material considerations" is so vague as to make it nearly impossible for a licensee to produce a well thought-out and effective application.
	Amendments Nos. 78 and 149 would give the licensing authority more latitude in its requirement to notify an applicant of a decision following a hearing. Instead of being required to notify the applicant of its reasons for taking any of the steps mentioned in Clause 18(3)(b), it must simply give reasons for its overall decision.
	I recognise the wish to remove the perceived strictures on the licensing authorities in that respect, but it again tips the balance too far. It will be of great importance not only to individual licensees but to the trade in general to build up experience of the type of action a licensing authority is likely to take in relation to a particular application. That will improve the quality of applications over time and, I hope, further reduce the need for hearings. It is vitally important that reasons for decisions are provided which are sufficiently detailed so that those affected by them can decide whether to challenge them.
	These amendments pull the Bill apart. I very much hope that they will not be pressed.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for the trouble she went to in responding. I am also in the paradoxical situation of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for coming in in support of me with his particular expert knowledge. Of course I express appreciation to my noble friend Lord Hodgson, whom I recently assisted in a small pairing matter, for having drawn attention to infelicities in Amendment No. 62.
	The Minister was kind to respond to Amendment No. 66, to which I had not actually spoken. As a plea is contained in what I would have said, I shall allude to it in responding to her. The point that I would have made is that the licensing authority must be able to use its own knowledge in deciding the weight of representations and not burden residents with providing the evidential base. Many residents will be lay people and it may be the first time that they have made representations or appeared at a hearing. The local authority must be able to decide the weight to give to representations even when these have not been articulately put, let alone founded upon some sort of evidential base. Not to do so would be to create a complete inequality under the European Convention on Human Rights. Local authorities will have knowledge from registers held and from inspections and their other functions, but that evidence must be capable of being brought to bear.
	The plea that I was going to make is that this matter might be considered in guidance. Given the problems encountered by those making representations without professional experience, guidance might afford a degree of latitude to the local authority in deciding the weight of those representations.
	There were suggestions that, this morning, I shot a bolt into the heart of the Bill. So far no experience from outer space has avenged that act. However, it would be foolhardy of me to run the risk twice with the Minister. I shall not complicate her life further in this regard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 63 to 74 not moved.]
	Clause 22 [Grant or rejection of application]:
	[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 76:
	Page 13, line 43, at end insert—
	"( ) A determination under this section does not have effect—
	(a) until the end of the period given for appealing against the decision;
	(b) if the decision is appealed against, until the appeal is disposed of."

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 76 are all consequential to it and reflect the same concept in Clauses 35, 75 and 84.
	The convention requires that the procedures by which convention and civil rights are determined create "equality of arms"; and convention rights, including the right to a fair hearing in civil matters (in Article 6), are subject to a requirement (in Article 14) that there should be no discrimination between people in analogous positions with respect to their convention rights. As currently drafted, the Bill seems to violate that principle because the licensee is given rights in this clause to commence trading as soon as the licensing authority has granted the application. However, in Clause 51(11), on a review where the licensing authority has made a decision to terminate or amend the licence, that decision is not given effect until after the time for appealing is over. That is an imbalance between the parties and a violation of the presumption against interference in Article 87.
	The belief behind this amendment is that the most proportionate amendment is, first, to delay the coming into effect of extensions of the property rights that arise from a decision to grant a licence under Clause 18 until after the appeal is over and it has been demonstrated that there is a pressing social need for the restriction on residents' rights, which is the requirement in Article 8; and, secondly, to allow the licensee to continue trading after an adverse decision following a review under Clause 51 until the appeal has been determined. The purpose of such amendment would be to amend this clause and leave Clause 51(11) unchanged. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, Clause 22 provides that licensing authorities must give notice to applicants and those who made relevant representations following the determination of applications for premises licences. Clause 75 sets out the same procedure in respect of club premises certificates and Clauses 35 and 157 for the variation of premises licences and club premises certificates. These amendments would introduce unacceptable and unnecessary delays into the process by preventing decisions of the licensing authority from coming into effect until either the period for making an appeal came to an end, or until the appeal that had been made was disposed of.
	Clauses 22 and 75 concern the procedure following a determination, not the determination itself. As I said during our debates in Committee, I wonder whether these amendments really have a place in those clauses. Aside from that observation, however, the general position in law is that where an appeal against any decision is made, the decision stands and is effective until overturned. The licensing system has to be efficient and effective and provide certainty. The net effect of the delay which these amendments would impose on the industry would be enormous.
	No licence or certificate or variation of them could come into effect for at least 21 days. Some businesses could be shut down for a long time pending the hearing of appeals, which would affect not only the owner of the premises but any staff employed there, too. It is not simply an applicant who has a right of appeal against a decision of the licensing authority, but anyone who has made relevant representations as well. The applicant may be very happy with the decision and want to go about his business as quickly as possible. Why should that be denied for at least three weeks just in case someone decides to appeal? Why should we depart from the normal position in these cases?
	I know that the noble Lord tabled these amendments, at least in part, because he was concerned that once an application for a licence or certificate, or indeed a variation of either, had been made, a court would not be able to overturn that decision on appeal. I think that he suggested that the only remedy for an appellant would be to seek judicial review. In fact that is not the case. Clause 176 provides that on an appeal in accordance with Schedule 5, which applies to all of the circumstances dealt with by these amendments, a magistrates' court may either dismiss the appeal; substitute for the decision appealed against any other decision which could have been made by the licensing authority; or remit the case to the licensing authority to dispose of it in accordance with the direction of the court.
	I believe that these amendments are unnecessary and would place an unnecessary burden on the industry. Given the existing protections in the Bill, and the reassurances I have given about the ability of the magistrates' court to overturn a licensing authority's decision, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, again I express my appreciation for the manner in which the Minister has responded. She is right that we discussed this in Committee and has a very clear recollection of our exchange. It was her noble friend Lord Davies who responded to my original amendment seeking to add to the licensing objectives the protection of human rights which we debated just after dinner last Monday. I indicated then that there would be a series of human rights amendments thereafter, which have been discussed between the residents' association in Soho, the department and the Select Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred.
	I am appreciative of the further information the Minister has given on Clause 176 in relation to avoiding the necessity to go to judicial review. In the light of the Minister's reassurance and the revisiting of the matters that we discussed in Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 not moved.]
	Clause 23 [Form of licence and summary]:
	[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
	Clause 27 [Surrender of premises licence]:

Viscount Falkland: moved Amendment No. 80:
	Page 15, line 34, leave out from "he" to end of line 35 and insert "shall give written notice to the relevant licensing authority and any person who has registered an interest in the premises under section 32(6) and the licensing authority shall not accept such surrender unless satisfied that the person so registered duly consents"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 28 [Application for a provisional statement where premises being built, etc.]:

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 81:
	Page 16, line 21, at end insert "and information specified in section 17(3) and (4)"

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, by virtue of Clause 18(6)(d), interested parties and responsible parties are prohibited from making relevant representations about provisional licences after a provisional statement is issued. But these parties have the opportunity to make representations in relation to provisional licences before the provisional statement is issued by virtue of Clauses 29 and 30. It is important, therefore, that interested parties and responsible parties have the same information in respect of the provisional licence as they would in respect of the final licence. The amendment would ensure that the information requirements are the same. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Clause 28 provides that where a premises is being built, extended or altered for use for licensable activities, a person with an interest in the premises may apply for a provisional licence. A provisional statement will give a degree of assurance to those who are investing in such work that the premises can be used for carrying out licensable activities once the work is completed.
	The Bill currently provides that an application for a provisional statement must be accompanied by a schedule of works. A schedule of works is a document in the prescribed form which includes a statement including particulars of the premises to which the application relates and of the licensable activities for which the premises are to be used; plans of the work about to be or being done at the premises; and such other information as may be prescribed.
	The amendments would remove the need to supply a statement including particulars of the premises and licensable activities and replace it with the operating schedule in Clause 17(3) and (4). An application for a provisional statement would need to be accompanied by a plan of the premises to which the application relates and, if the licensable activities which are to be undertaken include the sale of alcohol, a form of consent from the individual the applicant wishes to have specified in the premises licence as the premises supervisor.
	Clause 17(4) provides that an operating schedule includes information on a number of matters relating to the operation of the premises, including the licensable activities that are to be undertaken there, the times when they will take place and the person who is to be the designated premises supervisor.
	By its very nature, a provisional statement will be applied for only where work is to be carried on at a particular premises or, indeed, a new premises is being constructed. The work will often be carried out by an individual or company who have no intention of operating the business but intend to lease or sell the premises to another party who will operate the business. Clearly, under those circumstances, they could not be expected to provide all the information which is provided for in an operating schedule.
	A developer might intend to build a multi-use leisure complex with cinemas, bars and restaurants. He will wish to have some assurance that permission to carry on licensable activities at those premises will be granted, so he will apply for a provisional statement. In that application, he will say that he expects there to be a certain number of bars, restaurants and cinemas, give an idea of their size and the kind of activities that will take place there. He will clearly not be able to state the precise hours when these places will be open or the name of the designated premises supervisor.
	The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, might say that an applicant for a provisional statement who could provide all the information required by the operating schedule should be required to do so. But if the applicant has all that information, he might as well just apply for a premises licence straightaway. That would save him the fee associated with applying for a provisional statement as well as giving him greater assurance.
	If we accepted these amendments, we would be getting rid of the provisional statement procedure. We would be getting rid of a relatively simple way of providing an assurance to somebody who will spend money on developing or constructing licensable premises that they can go ahead in the assurance that, subject to no material change, they will have a licence when the work is complete. I cannot imagine that the industry would be happier with that. It seems out of keeping with the kind of development work and investment that we wish to see in the licensable trade.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will forgive me if I say I had the sense that he was, in the latter stages of his speech, engaging to establish eye contact with my noble friend Lord Hodgson in the hope of receiving an assenting nod. The Minister made a cogent case, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
	Clause 29 [Advertisement of application for provisional statement]:

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendments Nos. 83 and 84:
	Page 16, line 35, leave out "power to make regulations under" and insert "duty to make regulations imposed on the Secretary of State by"
	Page 16, line 38, after "made" insert "under section 17(5)(a)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 30 [Determination of application for provisional statement]:
	[Amendments Nos. 85 to 89 not moved.]

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 90:
	Page 17, line 43, at end insert—
	"( ) From issue, provisional statements granted under this section shall have effect for three years."

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I was encouraged by the Minister's response to the previous amendment in relation to Amendments Nos. 90 and 93. As drafted, Clause 31(3) allows a "relevant person" to raise objections to the opening of licensed premises following construction, even though no such objections were raised at the time of the operator's application for a provisional statement. It appears that objections can be raised where the individual concerned can show that he or she could not have raised that objection at the time of the original provisional statement or had a good reason for failing to do so. Similarly, objections can be raised where there has been a material change in circumstances relating to the premises or to the area in the vicinity of those premises.
	The creation of a power to object, following the completion of a development, creates a substantial, potentially insurmountable, barrier to investment. The retail and leisure industries are major players in assisting the achievement of regeneration policy across the United Kingdom. But operators, developers or lenders in respect of a project to construct a new supermarket, hotel, leisure centre or public house will be unable to establish whether a local residential property is likely to change hands prior to the completion of their project, thus creating the risk of a late objection.
	The Explanatory Notes give the example of a local resident being in hospital as a reason for having failed to object earlier. Presumably, an opportunity to object would also arise if the householder could establish that they were, for example, on vacation at the time that the original application was advertised.
	How could any developer protect himself against such an eventuality? The amendment would provide for a closer alignment between licensing law and planning law and would provide more certainty for operators. It is proposed that provisional statements should be time-limited in the same way as planning consents and should have the same three or five-year time frame. We assume that that will be confirmed in the next planning Bill, which we hope to see. Provided building works are started within the life of the planning consent, there should be no grounds for a second round of representations on the planning consent or the provisional statement. However, if work has not started within the appropriate period, the planning consent and provisional statements expire, but can be renewed, with representation invited if there are any material changes in circumstances.
	That is a sensible solution that is mindful of the rights of those living in the locality to make representations, but also provides a necessary level of certainty for operators, which is crucial to avoid inhibiting future retail and leisure investment. I beg to move.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of Whitbread plc. I try to deal with issues on this Bill that in my view are of practical significance. I support Amendment No. 90. It is clear from our discussions on a number of clauses that we have to keep a balance between two sets of interests. In this case, we need a balance between the possibility for representations to be made and properly considered in Clause 30—there is nothing wrong with subsections (1) to (7)—and some element of stability or at least some years of certainty for the proper planning of the provision of new premises or the renovation, development or improvement of premises.
	We have a full system for representations. There is no difficulty about that. However, Clause 31, headed, "Restriction on representations following provisional statement" —but not, "exclusion of representations"—refers clearly to:
	"Where,
	(a) the application for the premises licence is an application for a licence in the same form as the licence described in the application for the provisional statement, and
	(b) the work described in the schedule of works accompanying the application for that statement has been satisfactorily completed".
	I commend that drafting to the Plain English Campaign. It is clearly intelligible: there has been no substantive change. Surely, if there has been an opportunity for representations on the provisional statement and there has been no substantive change, we need to be able to give a clear assurance that no further representations will derail what has already been agreed.
	A company or an individual hotel, pub or restaurant owner might well hesitate to carry on with their plans for new premises or amendments or improvements to premises if they might be derailed later, when resources had already been committed to the improvement. This is a modest amendment that would give an assurance of stability to the developers of new or renovated premises for three years. That is not a lot to ask. It seems reasonable and I support it.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I have two amendments in this group and have added my name to a third. We discussed the issue at length in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I clashed over the use of "and" or "or". The source of our confusion was that the Explanatory Notes said "or" and the Bill said "and".
	The issue is the second bite at the cherry. We have talked at length about the need to promote investment and the necessary timescale. The heart of our difficulty relates to the material change in circumstances specified in Clause 31(3)(b), particularly the words,
	"to the area in the vicinity of".
	I had hoped for some clarification in the guidance notes, but paragraph 6.53 on page 41 more or less repeats what is in the Bill. There are concerns about how material changes in circumstances and the area in the vicinity could be interpreted. For example, it has been put to me that the construction of a block of flats close to the proposed location after the original provisional statement could be a change to the area in the vicinity, so the people who moved into the flats should have a chance to object. Another example was soaring crime figures in the area, which could be a change in circumstances that might give rise to the chance of restricting the original proposals.
	The costs of a subsequent refusal are a considerable issue. However, restrictive conditions that were not originally envisaged being imposed on the premises licence would be a less draconian but still very expensive outcome. Such conditions could include a reduction in the allowed opening hours or a reduction in capacity. That could change or undermine the commercial viability of the project. Perhaps the most likely outcome is that the opening of the premises would be delayed while the lawyers fought out exactly what the two phrases in question meant, during which time the fully kitted out entertainment facility—a pub or whatever—would be eating interest costs, unable to be opened. That would also be unsatisfactory.
	I have no problems with the three-year timescale proposed by my noble friend in Amendment No. 90. If the operator or developer chooses to change the situation completely and does not complete the works in the way that was originally envisaged, all bets are off. However, the current drafting leaves open the possibility of developers of entertainment facilities who have acted in good faith being undermined by people with an axe to grind. I strongly support my noble friend's amendment.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, only to the extent that the wording of the guidance is more or less identical to the Bill and does not give any further interpretation of what is meant by material changes of circumstances to the premises or to the area in the vicinity.
	I have a different anxiety, which arises from our debate on the last amendment, when the Government opposed the presentation of information about opening hours in the application for a provisional statement. It is possible for a person to have complied with all the requirements to get a provisional statement by saying that he wishes to convert the premises from their existing use within the A3 user class—for example, there might be a series of cafés next door to one another—into a larger establishment to be used for drinking purposes. As we heard earlier, he would not have to say what the opening hours would be. What happens if the potential objectors in the vicinity think that it will be an ordinary establishment that closes at 11 o'clock, but when the operating schedule is submitted for the full licence they find that the proposal is to open it until 3 o'clock in the morning? Will that be a material change of circumstances which restores the right that would otherwise be excluded under Clause 18(6)(d)? There may be a misprint in Clause 31(2) with reference to Clause 18(6)(d), which the noble Baroness may wish to address, but that is a small point.
	However, there is a serious point here as regards the rights of objectors to make representations where the nature of the occupation of premises changes between the issuing of the provisional statement and the application for the full licence. Therefore, I should like the Minister who will reply to satisfy your Lordships that representations will not be excluded in cases where no one had any reason to suspect that the premises would be open until three or four o'clock in the morning at the time the provisional statement was issued but people were then suddenly confronted with that situation at the time of the licence application. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that such persons would still have the right to make representations, notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 31.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Amendment No. 90 proposes time limiting a provisional statement for a period of three years, which aligns it with the period after which a renewal of a planning consent will be required in the future. That would require applicants to make a new application every three years, as they would in respect of planning permission. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, on each occasion of a new application, local residents would have their say.
	If Amendments Nos. 91 to 93 had been proposed in isolation from Amendment No. 90, I should have been inclined to oppose them. However, by matching the three-year limitation with the possible deletion of Clause 31(3), I see greater merit in the amendments. The limitations in Clause 31(2) would still apply.
	Both the approach taken in the Bill and in this group of amendments attempt to preserve what the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, rightly described as the very delicate balance between the needs of investors for some degree of certainty before they commit to major building projects and the need for proper protection for local residents. If the approach suggested by these amendments maintains that balance but would provide industry with greater confidence than the Bill does now, we should be prepared to look at the proposal.
	We need to examine the implications and talk to people involved in the industry and stakeholders before we reach a final decision but I am happy to take the matter away and consider it. I cannot promise to return with an amendment at Third Reading, or that an amendment on the face of the Bill will be necessary. However, we are certainly sympathetic to the objective behind the amendments.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that the Government opposed a statement of opening hours in the provisional statement. I did not say that. I said that in many cases it would not be possible to give a statement of opening hours or, for example, the name of the designated premises supervisor, as would be required by the operating schedule. If that information is known, there is no reason at all why it should not be provided or, indeed, why it should not be required.
	I do not think that the noble Lord is right with regard to a misprint in the reference to Clause 18(6)(d), but I shall write to him on that point. With those assurances, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, if someone did not know what the opening hours of a particular premises would be at the time of the provisional statement being issued, and then suddenly discovered that the relevant premises would be open until three or four o'clock in the morning, would they have forfeited their right to make representations?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should have thought that if that circumstance were entirely unexpected it would constitute a material change. Therefore, people would have the right to make representations. If I am wrong about that, I shall write to the noble Lord.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am rather disappointed in the Minister's reply given what he said in response to the previous amendment and our efforts to come up with what we feel is a sensible suggestion; namely, the proposed three-year period in relation to provisional statements. The Minister said that it was important to consider the needs of investors for some degree of certainty before they committed themselves to major projects, and for them to be confident that, subject to no material change occurring, they would get a premises licence when the relevant work was completed.
	The Explanatory Notes refer, for example, to the possibility that someone may be confined to hospital during the period in which representations could have been made. They state that the restriction on making representations following the issuing of a provisional statement would not apply to someone in those circumstances. We do not believe that that is a valid point.
	There is a delicate balance to be struck here. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, for his support. It is helpful to have the benefit of noble Lords' practical experience in this field. In many cases considerable investment is made in the projects we are discussing and that follows lengthy periods of planning. It is not always a case of big businesses investing in these projects, but rather all kinds of establishments. It may not always be the large supermarket operators and the big hotels and leisure centres which invest in the projects we are discussing. Smaller operators may invest in a project which they believe will contribute to local industry or to the tourist industry. I thought that we were encouraged to develop a more attractive, liberalised culture. However, they may be stopped in their tracks under the current provisions.
	The Minister said that he wanted to take the amendment away and think about it further, but we have considered the matter for two-and-a-half years. I should like to be confident that the Government will bring back an amendment at Third Reading. However, our amendments have been tabled for some time. We debated the matter at length in Committee. With some regret I believe that it is right that we—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, obviously, I have not made my position clear. I said that we agreed with the thrust of the amendments. I said—if I did not, I apologise—that we thought that the amendments reflected the delicate balance which needed to be maintained. We have said that we think there is much to be said for integration with the planning arrangements. I said that we would consider sympathetically Amendments Nos. 90, 91, 92 and 93. What I could not say is that we would be ready by Third Reading, and what I did not want to say was that there would necessarily be changes in primary legislation. But my intention is to be entirely sympathetic to the group of amendments.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I feel that I am stuck between a rock and a hard place. I entirely accept what the Minister said. He wishes me to back off with regard to the amendments. I am tempted to do so. However, we should feel more comfortable if the Minister could give us an assurance that a measure will be brought forward at Third Reading.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, before Third Reading but the gap between Report stage and Third Reading is very short. When we bring forward new thoughts on matters, we always consult those concerned. We would consult the industry and residents before making what is a significant change. Although the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Williamson, were sympathetic to the change, it has not necessarily been raised before with the industry. I am very unconfident that we would be able to consult to the extent that we would need to do between now and Third Reading. But that does not mean that we do not intend to do something about the measure.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his further assurances in relation to the amendments. I hope that he will accept that I seek to do my best for the industry which feels strongly about the issues we are discussing. But, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the amendment is withdrawn, I should say that I am not taking the amendments away for the sake of the industry. I am doing it because there is a balance to be maintained between the interests of public nuisance, public safety and those of people living in the vicinity of licensable premises and the proper concerns of the industry. If I gave the impression that our consultation would be only with industry, that was not the impression that I wished to give.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I hear what the Minister is saying. What I really meant was that I appreciate that further consultation is necessary. I regret that such consultation was not dealt with earlier, because I think that the point being put forward is one of common sense. We all agree that there is a delicate balance to be struck, as I said earlier. However, I accept what the Minister has said, so I look forward to seeing what happens in another place on this important point. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 31 [Restriction on representations following provisional statement]:
	[Amendments Nos. 91 to 93 not moved.]
	Clause 32 [Notification of change of name or address]:

Viscount Falkland: moved Amendment No. 94:
	Page 18, line 42, at end insert—
	"( ) Upon the application of any person who has an estate or interest in the premises whether as owner or lessee, prior or paramount to that of the occupier, the relevant licensing authority shall enter the name and address of that person and the nature of such interest upon the register of licences, subject to the payment of such fee as may be prescribed.
	( ) It shall be the duty of the relevant licensing authority as soon as reasonably practicable to notify any person registered under the preceding subsection of any matter entered in the licensing register under section 8(1)(c), save for notices recorded under paragraphs (b), (g), (h), (m), (r), (s), (t), (u), (v), (w), (x) or (y) of Schedule 3."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 33 [Application to vary premises licence]:
	[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 96:
	Page 19, line 15, leave out "power to make regulations under" and insert "duty to make regulations imposed on the Secretary of State by"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 34 [Determination of application under section 33]:
	[Amendments Nos. 97 to 101 not moved.]
	Clause 35 [Supplementary provision about determinations under section 34]:
	[Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 not moved.]
	Clause 36 [Application to vary licence to specify individual as premises supervisor]:
	[Amendments Nos. 104 to 106 not moved.]
	Clause 37 [Circumstances in which section 36 application given interim effect]:
	[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
	Clause 38 [Determination of section 36 application]:
	[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
	Clause 39 [Duty of applicant following determination under section 38]:
	[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
	Clause 40 [Request to be removed as designated premises supervisor]:
	[Amendments Nos. 110 to 113 not moved.]
	Clause 46 [Interim authority notice following death etc. of licence holder]:

Viscount Falkland: moved Amendment No. 114:
	Page 27, line 2, at end insert—
	"( ) that person has registered an interest in the premises under section 32(6) of this Act."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 50 [Application for review of premises licence]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 115:
	Page 29, line 27, at end insert—
	"(1A) Without prejudice to subsection (1), the chief officer of police for the police area in which any premises are situated must apply for a review of the premises licence for those premises if he is aware that there is being, or had been, carried on at those premises the sale, letting for hire, playing or exhibition of sound recordings, films, broadcasts or cable programmes in circumstances which amount to an infringement of copyright for the purpose of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48).
	(1B) In subsection (1A) "sound recordings", "films", "broadcasts" and "cable programmes" have the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) (copyright)."

Baroness Buscombe: We are now coming to the amendments on infringement of copyright. Again, we tested the point in Committee and had some considerable debates. We were disappointed by the Government's response.
	Many people who buy, or permit their premises to be used for the sale and use of, pirated material do not consider that the theft of intellectual property seriously harms those businesses which are legitimately using it and whose fees paid, either directly or through collecting societies, remunerate the distributor, producer and artistes. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said on 16th January 2003 that he believed that the current law was sufficient. That can be found in col. 335 of Hansard.
	It is accepted that piracy is a major funding source for crime and is one of a number of methods of money-laundering. Page 64 of the draft guidance, under paragraph 8.52, states in relation to Clause 177 that the licence does not need to spell out the legal requirement, but advises that failure to observe the law in practice could lead to a review of the premises licence.
	It is well known that the cost of piracy is great. The police are reluctant to act so, unless there is pressure on them to undertake actions by anti-piracy clauses in the Bill, there is a distinct danger that one of the licensing objectives—the prevention of crime—will not be pursued with vigour.
	We are grateful to the Government for tabling Amendment No. 194, which is welcome so far as it goes. However, it is effective only in respect of the sale or use of pirated material where alcohol is used at licensed premises. It would not apply to entertainment facilities as set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 such as a church or village hall or community centre. Such places are regularly used as venues for car boot sales, where many pirated products are sold to the public.
	Will the Minister reconsider our amendment, which is rather more far-reaching and would cover the area that we believe is not covered sufficiently by the government amendment? I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for her reference to Amendment No. 194. Both amendments address the problems of the use of copyright material without appropriate permissions, which includes films, sound recordings and cable television. We are well aware of the problems caused for many industries by infringement of copyright, and we are committed to constructive solutions to the problem. To that extent, we are at one on the matter.
	We have had representations from the British Video Association, the Cinema Exhibitors Association and Phonographic Performance Ltd. They have suggested ways in which the issues might be addressed through the Bill, and I am pleased that we can help them through Amendment No. 194.
	I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that although I clearly share her concerns on the matter I cannot accept Amendment No. 115, which would make it compulsory for the chief officer of police to apply for the review of a premises licence in any instance where the sale, letting for hire, playing or exhibition of sound recordings, films, broadcasts or cable programmes had taken place in infringement of copyright under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. No provision in the Bill compels either interested parties or responsible authorities, such as the police, to apply for a review because of a particular offence committed at the premises, even though conviction would not be a requirement if the amendment were accepted.
	The Bill provides discretion for those authorities to decide for themselves when to apply for review, and that discretion should be preserved. I see no reason to compel the police to apply for a review following an infringement when they are not compelled to do so for other—dare I say it—more serious offences. If the amendment were accepted. the police would be required to request a review of a premises licence if a licensee played music to his customers for which he did not have the appropriate permissions. However, if the premises is the scene of repeated outbreaks of violence, it may or may not be subject to review.
	The situations envisaged by the amendment can be dealt with by the Bill as currently drafted, as interested parties and responsible authorities may apply for the review of a licence if an offence is committed under the 1988 Act or any ground relating to the licensing objectives, which includes the prevention of crime and disorder. Of course, a breach of the 1988 Act is a crime. In that way, a cinema might make an application if a licensed premises was showing films for which it did not have the necessary permissions. However, to require the police to request a review would be disproportionate.
	Amendment No. 194 will provide a very valuable tool to help the licensing authority and the police address that issue. It would add certain offences committed under the 1988 Act to the list of relevant offences for the purposes of the Bill. That would mean, for instance, that a relevant offence would be committed by someone convicted of playing recorded music or exhibiting a film without appropriate permission. A person convicted of having in their possession for commercial purposes any unauthorised decoder would be guilty of a relevant offence.
	Under the Bill, applicants for personal licences will need to reveal whether they have committed any relevant offences. If they have, the licensing authority will be required to notify the chief officer of police and, if he is satisfied that granting a licence would undermine the crime prevention objective, he must issue an objection notice. That would lead to a hearing, and the authority could reject it if it believed that that was necessary to promote the crime prevention objective.
	When any personal licence holder is convicted of a relevant offence, it will be open to the court to order the forfeiture of the licence or its suspension for up to six months. In deciding whether to order forfeiture or suspension, the court will be able to take into account any previous conviction of the licence holder for a relevant offence.
	We have listened to the industry. Amendment No. 194, which I stress is supported by the industry, underlines how seriously we take the issue of copyright infringement. It will ensure that those who wish to be personal licence holders under the new regime will be subject to scrutiny as a result of committing those offences and should therefore ensure that they are deterred from doing so.
	I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will support Amendment No. 194 and acknowledge that it will address the concerns of industry about the use of intellectual property without appropriate permission.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, before the Minister concludes, will he respond to my concerns about Amendment No. 194, which we welcome? My concern was that the amendment would not apply to an entertainment facility such as a church hall, village hall or community centre, or to places that are regularly used for car boot sales. This is an important aspect of the matter.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. Amendment No. 194 is in Schedule 4, which is entitled: "Personal licence: relevant offences". Schedule 4 is triggered by Clause 111, which seeks to provide the authority for "relevant offence" and "foreign offence". I do not see in Schedule 4 or Clause 111 a restriction to premises where alcohol is being sold.
	However, my understanding is that I cannot give the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, the assurance that she seeks. The industry is principally concerned with breaches of copyright in pubs. It asked for the amendment to reflect that and we understand that it is content with our response.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, it would be worthwhile for the Government to consider my point. We entirely support Amendment No. 194: I hope that there is no misunderstanding there. It involves an important step forward. The area of copyright needs constant revision. A generation of people who are growing up now simply do not believe that it involves theft; they do not even look on what they do as piracy. They believe that the more that they can borrow each other's records and other material, use that to their own ends and share and multiply it among themselves, the better. They do not believe that there is anything wrong with that.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that I can be of more help to the noble Baroness. I should have said that Schedule 4 and Clause 111 refer to personal licences. She rightly said that personal licences apply only to premises for the sale of alcohol. Premises licences, to which she seeks to extend this arrangement, cover any of the licensing activities, including entertainment, and they can be reviewed if there have been copyright infringements. That is already the case.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clarification. We should continue to watch and review this matter. We are grateful that a step forward is being taken in the Bill. We and the Government know that this matter concerns the industry. There is a huge difference of opinion in this regard beyond your Lordships' House about whether people who are effectively stealing sound recordings, films, cable programmes and so on, are doing anything wrong. We are grateful to the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 116:
	Page 29, line 30, leave out "Regulations under this section may" and insert "The Secretary of State must by regulations under this section"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	4.45 p.m.
	Clause 51 [Determination of application for review]:
	[Amendments Nos. 117 to 119 not moved.]

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 120:
	Page 31, line 3, at end insert "or
	( ) to take such other actions as it deems necessary in the circumstances"

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. The amendment deals with the need to give the licensing authority powers to act proportionately. The steps in Clause 51(4) do not allow the licensing authority to issue warning letters, for example, which may be the most appropriate outcome of a review in many cases. I have reason to suppose that my noble friend Lord Hodgson will disagree with the amendment. I hope that I have given him a reasonably narrow target at which to aim.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I shall not disappoint my noble friend, although he has given me a very narrow target indeed! When we have applications for review, open-ended provisions of the sort proposed in my noble friend's amendment are undesirable because they open up a wide, as opposed to a narrow, target. I have been critical of the Government when they sought to add such catch-all phrases in various clauses in the Bill. I feel that logic means that I must oppose my noble friend's proposal.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, once again, the question of balance comes in. As I explained in Committee, the ability to seek a review of premises licences and club premises certificates, which is set out in the Bill, is new. At present, licensing justices have two routes open to them if a licensee has failed to observe his obligations. They can either revoke the licence altogether or do nothing at all. The licensing justices are often reluctant to take any action, particularly for minor transgressions. There is no ability or opportunity to consider a justices' licence in the absence of a breach of obligation. It severely undermines the ability to regulate the licensed trade.
	That is why the Bill introduces a much more flexible arrangement through which an interested party or a responsible authority may seek a review of a licence or certificate on a ground that is relevant to one or more of the licensing objectives. The steps available to the licensing authority in determining a review include the following: to modify the conditions of the licence or certificate; to exclude a licensable activity or qualifying club activity from the scope of the licence or certificate; to remove the designated premises supervisor where one exists; to suspend the licence or certificate for a period not exceeding three months; or to revoke the licence or certificate.
	I am sure that the House will appreciate how much finer the degree of control will be under the new system and the review process will be available even where there has been no breach of obligation. The review process is a significant and powerful one. The steps that the licensing authority may take following a review provide it with all the levers it needs to monitor and regulate the licensed trade effectively in the absence of non-compliance. At the same time, they ensure fair treatment for industry. The steps are the result of long consultation with stakeholders and I believe that it would be unwise to unpick them at this stage.
	Finally, Amendments Nos. 120 and 160 would allow the licensing authority to impose its own bespoke outcome to a review process. That would completely undermine the openness and transparency that we have sought to achieve. It must be remembered that the system of review is just that—a review—and is not an alternative to the taking of proceedings. It is designed to allow the continuation of an authorisation to be considered in the light of an application that sets out grounds that are relevant to the licensing objectives. The steps available to the licensing authority in determining the review must be proportionate and consistent. The amendments would make the system arbitrary and introduce widespread inconsistency throughout the country.
	If we really want to inflict damage on the industry, I suggest that we go ahead and agree to the amendment. If, on the other hand, we want to operate a system that is fair and transparent and which is completely clear about the duties of licensees, and the steps that might be taken where a review identifies concerns, we cannot agree to the amendments. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will withdraw them.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I must necessarily have a certain protean quality if I can provide simultaneously both a narrow and a broad target. I am perfectly clear what target my noble friend Lord Hodgson was aiming at, but at whichever target the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was aiming, she has reasonably hit it in my case. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 54 [Fees]:
	[Amendment No. 121 not moved.]

Baroness Thornton: moved Amendment No. 122:
	Page 32, line 12, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	"(b) prescribe guidance for licensing authorities when setting the amount of the fee and what may be charged for under the fee."

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 122, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 162. Both address the same issue, with one amendment relating to premises and the other to clubs. First, I apologise to your Lordships for not being in attendance to speak on these issues in Committee as I was ill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for conveying my apologies to the House as we were speaking to the same amendments at that time.
	The reason for returning to this question is that there has been a material change in the reasons that the Minister gave in her answer to the Committee on these amendments. In addition, the discussions between the Local Government Association and the DCMS on this situation are ongoing. I thank the Local Government Association and, indeed, Camden Council, for the briefing and information that they provided for me. Perhaps I should also declare an interest as a council tax payer in the London Borough of Camden.
	The current statement in Clause 54 refers to regulations that may,
	"prescribe the amount of the fee".
	The DCMS has said on numerous occasions that it will ensure that the centrally set application fee and annual fee will cover all the associated costs. That is a welcome assurance. By costs, I assume that the DCMS means the costs of policy development, pre-application discussions, adequate consultation, hearings, mediation, inspections and enforcement, and not only processing applications. However, it is hard to envisage how the DCMS will come up with a one-size-fits-all fee that does not involve local authorities either making a loss or making a profit.
	The amendments that I propose today would still impose statutory regulations on fee setting as it would tightly control what may be charged for under the fee and how the fee should be calculated. But within those guidelines, local authorities would set their own fee in consultation with licensees, residents and business.
	I wonder why the DCMS would want to involve itself in that kind of local government business. My assumption is that, in principle, this Government would normally, I hope, allow independent decision-making to be taken at the lowest level. That, in any event, seems to fly in the face of that principle. Therefore, why would one size not fit all?
	In Committee, the Minister said that the DCMS was considering introducing a separate fee band for London and the South East because of higher costs. That would be a step in the right direction. But that alone will not achieve a fair licensing fee for both local authorities and licensees. Apart from anything else, what about places such as Manchester, Newcastle and Leeds?
	I understand that DCMS civil servants are due to meet the LGA to discuss the results of an LGA fee questionnaire of rural, town, metropolitan and London local authorities. That will demonstrate that in every possible area of the licensing process—from numbers of full-time staff to average salaries to numbers of inspections, and administrative costs for processing applications—rural, town, metropolitan and London councils have varying costs. I do not want to pre-empt the questionnaire results or the meeting, but I want to give noble Lords two examples of the differing costs that local authorities incur.
	In terms of the associated costs for local authorities, I shall name but two. The first is wage costs. Those will impact on the cost of every part of the application process, from policy development, inspections, enforcement and the actual processing of applications. London weighting is an obvious example of that. If the DCMS calculates an "average" wage cost for the whole of England and Wales, London boroughs and metropolitan councils will lose money but rural councils, with lower wage costs, may make money.
	The second is travel expenses. In rural districts where licensed premises are spread over a wide area, travel costs associated with inspections and enforcement will be far greater than, for example, those in inner-city boroughs, notwithstanding the congestion charge. Therefore, it is not appropriate for the DCMS to give a petrol allowance as part of the fee, as many urban local authorities do not use vehicles to get around. So, again, there may be an unwelcome result, with some local authorities making money on travel costs and some losing money. I believe that those are legitimate questions that need to be addressed.
	The DCMS and some groups within the licensing trade seem to believe that some local authorities are currently making vast profits from their licensing fee. In Committee, the Minister said:
	"Local authorities have had their chance [to set fees] and they have failed".—[Official Report, 16/1/03; col. 343.]
	As a result, as my noble friend argued, imposing a nationally set fee was justified.
	As the basis both for the argument for a nationally set fee and to guide the setting of a national fee in the regulatory impact assessment, the DCMS has used figures from a CIPFA report. However, I am informed that the CIPFA figures on the annual profit that local authorities make from fees were misquoted in the Committee debate on 16th January. In the debate, a figure of £8.9 million was quoted as the net profit made by local authorities nationally. My understanding is that, in reality, local authorities nationally make an annual loss of £7.1 million. Therefore, it appears to me that the DCMS's argument for taking fee setting out of the hands of local authorities is fundamentally flawed.
	I am grateful to the Minister, who acknowledged in a letter to me that there will indeed have to be some reassessment of the RIA. I ask what exactly that would mean, because it seems to me that there needs to be a complete reinterpretation.
	However, the LGA acknowledges that a minority of councils make a profit from the licensing fee. But the vast majority operate at a loss—and sometimes a huge loss. I want to take Camden Council as a case study of how the £100 to £500 regulatory impact assessment might work.
	At present, Camden Council's licensing responsibilities involve 175 premises. That number will rise to 1,500 when all the premises with liquor licences are included. The guidance framework for the Bill notes that the Government's expectation is that local authorities will receive "a very considerable income" during the transition period. That is based on the fee income expected to arise from existing premises transferring their licences to the new regime. Under the regulatory impact assessment, all licensed premises will be required to pay a one-off fee of between £100 and £500 during the transfer from the old to the new licensing system.
	If we assume that the midpoint of that range is £300, then Camden can expect revenue of around £0.45 million from its 1,500 premises. The inadequacy of such fee levels is exposed by the fact that Camden's current licensing costs are more than £0.5 million. That is for processing some 300 licences annually, including some occasional licences. Therefore, current costs already exceed the expected fee income, and I believe that there is a problem here.
	Camden Council also estimates that the volume of variations likely to be received during the transition period could be considerable. A preliminary survey of business responses suggests that between 400 and 500 existing businesses will apply for a variation in the licence. Again, that is a conservative estimate as many businesses are not yet familiar with the Bill and have not yet considered what changes they may make.
	Surely a much fairer system for both licensee and local authority would be for the Government to prescribe guidance on how to calculate the fee and what may be charged under the fee but not to prescribe the amount of the fee. That is why the amendment has been tabled. Regulations would need to make clear the process for calculating fees and would need to be transparent and open to scrutiny. Local authorities would then need to consult local businesses and residents and so on before setting the charge. Indeed, auditing and scrutiny of local authority systems are already in place. That would also ensure that local authorities do not make money out of the fee.
	In conclusion, I reiterate that if the fee is set centrally, not only will thousands of local authorities lose money but, perversely, some local authorities which have lower costs will make money. I suggest that that is not a welcome scenario for the Government, the licensees or the local authorities. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I shall speak extremely briefly. Many points have been raised, especially regarding the issues of which I am well aware in Camden. I shall ask the Minister one question about fees. The fees are now to be set by regulation. We have already discussed the joys of centrally set fees in regard to regulations for public entertainment licences, which will make the system a good deal easier. If fees are to be set by regulation, which groups will be consulted on a change in the fee bands at a later date? Does the Minister have a set procedure on groups which should be consulted to discuss whether the fee structure is working?

Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 237A which stands in my name and which is grouped with the amendment. It is concerned with the question of fees. It seeks to give an applicant a specific right of appeal against an unreasonable fee. First, I apologise for not being present in Committee, which was due to my being absent from the country. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for raising the issue on my behalf in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that,
	"fees will be set centrally by the Secretary of State, following consultation. There will be no scope for variation by the licensing authority and, as a result, no need for appeal against them.—[Official Report, 20/1/03; col. 464.]
	Clauses 54 and 90 of the Bill state that,
	"regulations may"—
	I stress the word "may"—
	"prescribe the amount of the fee".
	Amendment No. 122 raises the question whether the provision will be a prescription or guidance as to the fee. It would be difficult, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, to set fees centrally for the wide diversity of, in particular perhaps, public entertainment licences.
	My questions for the Minister are: is the matter a question of prescription or is it guidance? What is to stop the local authority/licensing authority in any event adding to the fee? In the event of an additional or unacceptable fee, will the applicant be able to appeal?

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for having moved the amendment. She provided some examples in the context of Camden. I shall take the liberty of providing some information in the context of Westminster. I shall do that in particular because—and it is not a secret to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—Westminster City Council has both this morning and this afternoon been conducting a seminar for local authority officers from all over the country to discuss the Bill and its implications. I say that it is not a secret because the department was invited to be present and to take part in the panel. It is no surprise and no discourtesy on the part of the department that, because of its preoccupation with the business in the Chamber today, it was not able to attend. I mention it in order to demonstrate that the seminar was in no way being conducted behind the Government's back.
	I cite the seminar because a local authority officer from Southampton said that he received a telephone call from the department last week, which was the first contact that Southampton City Council had had on the matter, to ask what fees it currently charged. That gave the impression that perhaps the amount of data available to the department at this stage in the proceedings is not as far advanced as it might be. I had the privilege of commenting on the parliamentary progress of the Bill. I went out of my way to praise the courtesy with which the Minister and indeed her two colleagues on the Front Bench had treated the House.
	I have some figures of a similar nature to those for Camden. They are somewhat larger because of the greater number of premises in Westminster. It is projected that Westminster will have 3,241 liquor licences transferring in the first year and that on average there will be 54 new licences per year during the next 10 years. The base for those figures was supplied by the magistrates' court. They were then applied to a logarithmic equation to project the figures over 10 years from 2004 to 2014.
	Based on fees in the DCMS regulatory impact assessment, Westminster's income is estimated to be £7.285 million on a best case basis and £2.293 million on a worse case basis. The anticipated cost to the council of providing the service over 10 years is £27.4 million. The best case scenario therefore envisages a net loss to the council over 10 years of just over £20 million. On a worst case scenario the net loss to the council over 10 years is £25 million. The cost per licence of the council was based on the cost per licence for a public entertainment licence and a night café licence. The logarithmic equation was based on the growth of public entertainment licences and night cafés since 1992. It has been assumed that the rate of growth of liquor licences follows the same trends and timescales.
	On personal licences, where the figures are much more modest, it is projected that there will be 454 personal licences created for Westminster in the first year, and that on average there will be seven new licences per year during the following nine years. The percentage of people in Westminster who will require a personal licence is based on the number of street traders living in Westminster applied to the number of new premises that will have a liquor licence.
	Based on the figures in the DCMS regulatory impact assessment, Westminster's income is anticipated to be £15,000. The anticipated cost to the council over 10 years will be approaching £60,000. The cost of a personal licence is based on the cost of a door supervisor's licence. Therefore, the net loss to the council over 10 years would be £43,000. The figures in the first category of premises licences—where the best case scenario is of a net loss to the council over 10 years of £20 million and the worse case scenario a net loss to the council over 10 years of £25 million—underlie the anxieties of local authorities up and down the country as to the economic consequences of this new licensing arrangement as regards both their costs and their income. I hope those details may be of some service to your Lordships' House.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, we had a constructive debate on the issue of the central setting of fees in Committee when my noble friend was ill. I emphasised then that fees will be set at a level which will allow all licensing authorities to recover the costs of administration, enforcement and inspection. Fee levels will be decided following extensive consultation with local authorities and local authority bodies, as well as other stakeholders, and will be set in regulations made by the Secretary of State and made subject to the negative procedure. I hope that that answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. So there will be extensive consultation with everyone involved.
	The Government will of course consider whether the fact that some geographical areas have significantly higher overheads relating to labour and accommodation should be reflected in the levels of the fees. Our intention is that fee levels will take into account the size of premises because the costs relating to a large night club could differ from those of a small pub or bar. But fees will allow all licensing authorities to recover their costs and will be structured in such a way to ensure that that is the case.
	One answer to my noble friend's question of why the Government want to set fees is the current large variation in both the level of fees and the way they are calculated. Fees differ significantly across the country. Furthermore, some places, on top of a flat fee for public entertainment licences, charge per person above a certain number. Others do not. Some areas increase the fees to premises in town centres and some do not. Some charge a higher fee if the licence is to operate at later hours. All this inconsistency leads to uncertainty and confusion for businesses and others seeking to apply for public entertainment licences.
	The Bill seeks to make the licensing process simple, straightforward and transparent. An important means to achieve that is by setting appropriate and fair fees centrally. The principle that fees will be fair and proportionate would be undermined by Amendment No. 237A. I should perhaps add, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, that the licensing authority will have no legal powers to impose additional fees.
	The House should also appreciate that there is nothing radical in our proposal to set fees centrally. The 155,000 holders of alcohol licences pay fees to the licensing justices that are set centrally by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Similarly, the fees for the 40,000 occasional permissions are set centrally for the 22,000 organisations seeking them each year. The fees for cinema licences are set centrally by statutory instrument. The businesses paying local authority-set fees for public entertainment, theatre and late night refreshment are very much the minority under the existing regimes.
	I should tell my noble friend Lady Thornton that, under the new regime, premises licences will not have to be renewed. It is important to avoid drawing direct comparisons between the old system and the new one—they will be very different.
	To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, one must wonder why the figures that he cited have not been passed to my department, despite promises that were made. I certainly do not accept those estimates of the cost of the new system. However, no doubt when they are presented for challenge, we shall be able to have a more constructive debate about fair and reasonable fee levels. Given my assurances that fees will be set at a level that will allow all licensing authorities to recover costs, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
	I should perhaps add a word about the CIPFA figures. The department's interpretation of the CIPFA figures was incorrect, for which I apologise. That of course means that my assertion that local authorities make a net gain from entertainment licensing was incorrect. That was a genuine mistake. We are updating the regulatory impact assessment but, even taking account of that, our estimate of a premises licence fee in bands between £100 and £500 is still correct.
	I do not accept what my noble friend Lady Thornton said: that that requires a complete reinterpretation. The CIPFA figures were not the only justification for setting licensing fees centrally—far from it. We want to institute a national system that does not contain all the awful inconsistencies of the current one, but I reassure my noble friend and others who have spoken that we shall continue to discuss the issues with the Local Government Association as we work on setting precise fee levels.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those remarks and her explanation. I am not sure that I am reassured, or that local government will be, but I am pleased to know that discussions are continuing and will continue. I thank noble Lords for their support.
	This is not a London conspiracy or just a London concern; there is great concern across the country. It essentially concerns the quality of the scheme. There is no point in having a brand-new scheme if it is under-funded and therefore ineffective. I urge further discussion, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Thornton: moved Amendment No. 123:
	Page 32, line 18, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	"(4) If the annual fee is not paid by the prescribed time, the relevant premises licence will lapse on that date.
	(5) If a licence lapses under the provisions of subsection (4), the former holder of that licence may for a period of three months, commencing on the date the licence lapsed, seek reinstatement of the licence.
	(6) The applicant for reinstatement shall pay to the relevant licensing authority the annual fee together with such reasonable reinstatement fee fixed in advance by that licensing authority.
	(7) The premises licence shall be deemed to have been reinstated as soon as the requisite fees have been received by the licensing authority."

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 163, which addresses the same issues as Amendment No. 123. They concern the problem of defaulting. My noble friend addressed the issue in Committee, but on reading the Official Report of our debates, I felt that the issue and its implications—which are important for how the whole system will operate—were not fully explored and explained.
	Currently, the law states that if people do not pay the performance entertainment licence fee before the expiry date of the licence—usually after one year—their entertainment licence lapses until the operator pays the fee. The Government propose that local authorities will effectively be able to chase up the fee—which will be for all licensable activities, not just entertainment licences. That will cause significant problems, which is why new subsections (4), (5) and (6) have been tabled.
	First, under the new legislation, the majority of premises licences will run continually until surrendered or revoked. What possible incentive is there, therefore, for operators to pay their ongoing annual fee? The Bill appears to contain no redress or active action that local authorities can take. It is a bit like people saying that they want to defer their car tax for a month or so, because they cannot afford it this month. The principle is exactly the same.
	Secondly, there is the issue of the unnecessary time and resource burden on local authorities who will have to chase up the fee. The Bill assumes that local authorities will have the time and resources to chase up fees—a concern to local authorities across England and Wales. In the real world of local authorities' priorities, they will have to choose whether to spend council tax payers' money on subsidising a debt collection service for the licence fee or whether to spend the same money on teachers, books or other things that they may think more important.
	The potential impact of a reduction in the cash flow necessary to keep the licensing system running should not be underestimated. Local authority budgets cannot sustain year-on-year under-achievement of income because licensees have no incentive to pay. The result could be an under-funded, inefficient service of benefit to no one—especially not to responsible licensees who pay on time.
	In essence, that is the heart of the issue. If 5 per cent of the 1,500 licensed premises in Camden council's area—to cite that example again—do not pay up on time, that amounts to 75 premises. First, they must be identified. Then letters need to be sent to them—which is, perhaps, two full days' work. Then further chasing will be needed. Then the matter will have to be passed on to the finance section for further chasing. If, say, 20 of the 75 still do not pay up, legal fees, bailiffs, debt collectors and possibly court proceedings will be involved. That cannot be a sensible use of our council tax payers' money.
	In fact, it is highly likely that the cost to the council of recovering the annual fee from licensees who are slow in paying will be equal to, if not significantly more, than the value of fee. That will be in addition to the extra costs and resources that local authorities will have to find to process the initial increase in applications. I beg to move.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, but I observe that paragraph 8 of the draft guidance to local authorities includes a large section—which does not spring immediately to mind—regarding conditions attached to premises licences. As the noble Baroness said, the payment of fees is vital to the proper administration of the scheme by local authorities. I cannot see any reason why a condition should not be attached to the licence specifying that fees must be paid annually on whatever date is necessary—presumably, the anniversary of the application for the licence, but that may not be so. I ask the Minister: is such a provision in mind under the conditions that attach to premises licences?

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we also support the amendment. I had assumed that a premises licence included a public entertainment licence, so that the two would not be divorced. However, if regulations are to be set, will the provisions be added to them, or do they need to be in the Bill?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the conditions in these amendments would make the penalty for late or non-payment of the annual fee a suspension of the premises licence or club premises certificate. As I said when the amendments were discussed in Committee, the approach is disproportionate. I cannot agree with my noble friend.
	She is being unduly pessimistic in her assumption about non-payment also. So far as I understand it, there is not a serious problem of non-payment of fees for entertainment licences, for which local authorities are currently responsible. I see no reason why there should be problems with fee payment for alcohol licences either. Any unpaid fees will be recoverable as debts. Local authorities already have powers to recover debts. But the actions proposed by these amendments in cases of non-payment or late payment of fees could threaten the livelihoods of many people, not just premises licence-holders. I agree entirely that fees should be paid, and that that should happen on time. I am sure that local authorities will encourage licence-holders to do just that. But late or non-payment of fees could be the result of something as simple as administrative oversight, and one reminder could produce the fee. In such cases, suspending a licence is not an appropriate or proportionate sanction.
	The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked whether a condition about the payment of the fee would be attached to the licence. Such a condition does not relate to the licensing objectives, so it would not be appropriate to attach it to the licence. Payment of the fee is a matter of law and is legally enforceable. I suppose that it would be perfectly feasible to include a provision about fee payment in the regulations, but I do not think that the Government intend to do so at present.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, my understanding is that, at present, a public entertainment licence lapses if the fee is not paid. Without a penalty, there is no incentive to pay. Is the Minister saying that the Government regard past practice as totally unsatisfactory and unfair, when it has worked perfectly satisfactorily? Because there is a penalty, licence-holders have made sure that they pay the fee on time.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am extremely sorry; if the noble Lord is right, I stand corrected. I was not aware that the present system of entertainment licensing involved the immediate suspension of a licence if the fee was paid late, or if there was a delay in passing the fee to the local authority. If I am wrong, I shall let the noble Lord know and place a letter in the Library.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answer and other noble Lords for their support. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton-Mandeville, was my precise reason for moving this amendment. I understand that the licence lapses if the fee is not paid. It is a jolly good way of making sure that people pay their fees on time. The approach works well, so it seems sensible to extend it to the whole licensing system.
	I shall withdraw the amendment. But I ask the Minister to look again at the matter, which we can perhaps discuss at some other time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 124:
	Page 32, line 19, at end insert—
	"( ) In regulations made under this section, the Secretary of State shall prescribe a nil fee to certain categories of premises which shall include—
	(a) church halls,
	(b) village halls,
	(c) parish halls,
	(d) community centres, and
	(e) similar community buildings."

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, this important amendment would result in nil fees for certain categories of premises. We considered it following an extensive and fruitful debate in Committee. The amendment is straightforward and self-explanatory. We moved a similar amendment in Committee in respect of which we argued that the financial burden of a full premises licence on community and parish halls would be potentially crippling and stifle the use of such buildings for local events.
	The Bill has raised a multitude of fears among non-profit-making organisations. Notwithstanding full debate and full responses by Ministers at previous stages, particularly in Committee, we are still receiving a significant amount of lobbying from all kinds of organisations—particularly non-profit-making bodies—that remain deeply concerned about several aspects of the Bill.
	I am pleased to say that Amendment No. 124 is tabled in response to encouraging noises made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in Committee. She set out to clarify the position on the setting of fees in regulations, saying:
	"The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to set a reduced or, indeed, nil fee for categories of premises in the regulations. We are looking at the position of all the premises types covered by the amendment, with a view to trying to minimise the financial burden so far as we can. That may well involve waiving the fee altogether, although various issues obviously need to be considered".—[Official Report, 16/1/03; col. 357.]
	In the light of that positive response, I hope that we may be assured on the issue by the inclusion of details in the Bill. The Government clearly agree with our point in principle. Although the rest of the fees may be decided by regulation, such exemptions for premises hosting a range of community events would allay the fears of many small-scale, non-profit-making venues. We are clear in our amendment. We are looking simply at church halls, village halls, parish halls, community centres and similar community buildings. This is an occasion where something should be set in stone in the Bill rather than in regulations. We all know what happens with regulations in practice. They can be changed, but obviously there can be debate.
	This issue affects so many people, particularly volunteers, who are not out to make a profit but simply to do all that they can to support their local community. Over the years we know that that will become increasingly difficult for communities. In that case, we believe that it would serve the Government well if they accepted this amendment and made clear in the Bill that there should be no fee for activities in those premises. I beg to move.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I strongly support the amendments, which are also in the name of my noble friend Lord Falkland. The amendment is eminently sensible in the bodies that it sets out. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said that issues would arise from the nil fee for those premises. There will be a cost implication for local councils, if they are still expected to inspect the premises involved. However, the cost must be weighed against the social benefit of ensuring that the organisations involved are viable.
	Village halls, in particular, are the lifeblood of many rural communities, and are under severe threat. Even the smallest charges are difficult to meet from the limited funds of many such bodies.
	A further consequence of no inspections would be the safety implications. Obviously, inspections should continue on a regular basis. The Government indicated that churches will be exempt from inspections. Will the Minister give an indication of the level at which inspections will take place on these buildings if no fees were set under regulation? I hope that the Minister accepts the amendment.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I support the amendment. If the Minister is not ready to come forward with this solution, will she at least tell your Lordships the issues that need to be considered? She mentioned them on 16th January at col. 357 of the Official Report, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. If they are not complex issues, the Minister has had almost six weeks in which to consider them. I should have thought that at least a description of the issues could be put forward so that we know precisely what is involved. Small village halls work on extraordinarily precarious economics. They even have whip-rounds. My former home was in the village of Down in my former constituency of Orpington. Every so often I receive a letter asking whether I will contribute to the cost of running the village hall; and I am delighted to do that. That demonstrates that the economics of such village halls mean that they cannot break even on the activities that take place in them, but need to be subsidised by the generosity of local residents and anyone else that can be roped-in. To charge village halls fees on top of other costs which they already incur while maintaining what is essentially a service to local people, would be an additional burden that they do not deserve. I hope that the Minister will agree to this amendment.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not want to waste the time of the House, but I want to say that all these halls and community centres operate on a shoestring. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I receive letters from the new town—except I suppose that these days it is an old new town—of Skelmersdale, and my family has not lived there for three generations. Perhaps I am a little more divorced from it than the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
	It is important that the lowest possible fee—which ideally should be a nil fee—be charged for licences for these types of places. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, raised health and safety issues. During the passage of the Bill, we have been told time and again by Ministers that certain aspects of linked but somewhat extraneous law are outwith the purposes of the Bill. Fire inspections and health and safety inspections of village halls, community centres and so forth, must fall into that category.

Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. If the Minister rejects the amendment, has she considered charging a nominal fee? That would overcome our difficulties.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government have taken seriously the many representations that we have received on this issue. On 7th February we confirmed that we intend to exempt church halls, chapel halls and other similar buildings occupied in connection with a place of public religious worship. In addition, village halls, parish or community halls and other similar buildings will be exempt from the fees for entertainment under the licensing regime.
	Our intention mirrors current licensing law outside London where such premises are already exempt from the fee for an entertainment licence, although not from the licensing regime itself. Inside Greater London a fee is payable. Our scheme therefore represents a considerable liberalisation within London.
	However, we do not agree that it is necessary, or would be helpful, to set these arrangements out on the face of the Bill. It would weaken the flexibility to extend the fee exemption to other classes of premises if it became clear, in the light of experience of the new system, that that would be desirable.
	I hope that those on Benches opposite accept that this is a firm undertaking to carry out the proposals in the amendment. We are now on record in the House and elsewhere that this is what we intend to do—and we shall do it. It is to be hoped that noble Lords agree that the Government's clear statement of intent ensures that small local entertainment, so vital to our communities, continues to thrive and develop as a result of this concession. On that basis, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. We are grateful for the concession that the Government have made with regard to these particular types of premises. I also thank noble Lords who supported the amendment. However, I take issue with the Minister at the suggestion that having this list clearly on the face of the Bill would limit the ability of the Government at a future date to extend the exemption. Having the list on the face of the Bill should not be considered exclusive. However, I am grateful that during today's debate, and in a letter to me, the Minister has confirmed that the Government are keen not to exempt, but to ascribe a nil fee to these categories of premises. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 58 [Inspection of premises before grant of licence etc.]:
	[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
	Clause 61 [The general conditions]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 126:
	Page 35, line 28, at end insert—
	"(7) Nothing in the following condition applies to a club which restricts membership to persons of one sex.
	(8) Condition 6 is that the club does not practise sex discrimination (within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (c. 65) (sex discrimination against women)) in the arrangements made or operated as regards the rights of participation in the governance of the club."

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked me to move this in his place. He has had to leave in order to fulfil another commitment. Amendment No. 126 stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. In speaking to this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 127 and 128, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Lester.
	We have reached Part 4 of the Bill, which deals with clubs. In order to obtain a club premises certificate under this part, a club must be a qualifying club. Under Clause 60, if a club wishes to provide alcohol or entertainment or both, it must satisfy each of the five conditions set out in Clause 61. If the club wishes to supply alcohol, whether or not it also provides entertainment, it must also meet the three additional conditions set out in Clause 63.
	It might be helpful if I spoke first to Amendment No. 127, although that might take us out of numerical order. That amendment deals with a relatively straightforward point, which is distinct from the point raised in the other two. Amendment No. 127 would impose an additional condition along with the general conditions set out in Clause 61. It says:
	"Condition 7 is that there is no finding by a court in proceedings under section 20 of the Race Relations Act 1976 . . . that the club has done an act which is unlawful by virtue of section 25 . . . of that Act".
	That condition would not apply in cases in which the finding was made before the clause came into force or more than three years before the application.
	The Race Relations Act 1976 applies to clubs. If a club is found guilty of discrimination on grounds of race, legal proceedings can be started against it and sanctions can be applied. Amendment No. 127 would create an additional sanction, the effect of which would be that, for three years after there had been a finding against the club, the club would not be able to apply for a club premises certificate, as it would not be a qualifying club. That sanction should be applied. It would be a powerful sanction against racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is a serious evil, and banning such a club from applying for a club premises certificate for three years is a proportionate penalty for breaching the Race Relations Act.
	Amendments Nos. 126 and 128 apply to the question of sex discrimination. The position is different because the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 does not apply to private members' clubs. As is well known, private clubs retain the right to be men-only or women-only clubs. However, there are clubs to which women are admitted as members but in which they are excluded from certain rights enjoyed by men who are members. We are particularly concerned with the right to participate in the management and governance of the club, and we feel strongly that such exclusion is a breach of the spirit of the Sex Discrimination Act.
	The exemption of clubs under that Act was intended to protect a long-standing right—it may now be thought by many to be anachronistic, but it has a great deal of tradition behind it—to have clubs of which only men or only women could be members. My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill is in a better position than, perhaps, anyone else now living to know about the Sex Discrimination Act, as he was involved in its creation. The intention of the Act was not to allow women to be admitted to membership of a club only as second-class members. We believe therefore that the appropriate step to take would be to say that a club which allows women to join, but then makes them second-class members because they are not allowed to take part on an equal basis in the governance of the club, should not be entitled to a club premises certificate. In order to gain the certificate, the club must admit women on terms of full equality as regards its governance.
	I understand that an amendment tabled in Committee would have gone still further by providing that a club premises certificate could be issued only in a case where women were equally entitled to participate in all the functions and benefits provided by the club. We have narrowed that down and are now bringing forward an amendment to apply only where women cannot take part on equal terms in the management of the club.
	Amendment No. 126 adds a further condition to the general conditions set out in Clause 61 which would exclude the right of a club to be a qualifying club if it practised sex discrimination,
	"in the arrangements made or operated as regards the right of participation in the governance of the club".
	Part of the amendment also makes clear that that condition does not apply to single-sex clubs. However, whenever a club admits members of both sexes, then the condition as regards participation in the governance of the club must be satisfied.
	Amendment No. 128 deals with Clause 63, which sets out the three conditions for those clubs wishing to sell alcohol. It requires that the purchase of alcohol must be managed by a committee whose members are,
	"(a) members of the club;
	(b) have attained the age of 18 years; and
	(c) are elected by the members of the club".
	It may well be that under the provision, women would be entitled to take part in the voting procedure, but it would be legitimate to say that although they might be able to vote for the committee because they were members, the club could validly have a rule that excluded women from membership of the committee which purchased the alcohol. We feel that that activity is also an important part of the governance of the club and therefore, for the avoidance of doubt—although it may well be implicit in Amendment No. 126—we believe that it should be spelt out as suggested in Amendment No. 128. Membership of the committee as well as the right to vote for members of the committee must be open to members of both sexes.
	We believe the amendments to be important and useful. I beg to move.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out, I have added my name to Amendment No. 126.
	The three amendments take forward our debate in Committee on the issue of sex discrimination in clubs. At that stage I moved an amendment which sought to make unlawful discrimination in the provision of goods and services, access to facilities and participation in the governance of clubs.
	The crucial piece of legislation which is to be repealed by this Bill is Schedule 7 to the Licensing Act 1964, which deals with the governance of such clubs. The schedule states that the affairs of private members' clubs,
	"must be managed by one or more elective committees",
	and that,
	"There must . . . be a general meeting of the club at least once in every year",
	at which the voting must be confined to members. The 1964 Act goes on to say,
	"all members entitled to use the club premises must be entitled to vote, and must have equal voting rights".
	However,
	"the rules may exclude from voting . . . women if the club is primarily a men's club, and men if the club is primarily a women's club.
	I think it fair to say that in Committee some confusion arose about whether the repeal of Schedule 7 to the 1964 Act left the situation better or worse than before. My concern was that repealing the schedule would make the situation worse because it would remove the modest protection for governance.
	When my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham replied to the debate—I believe that I am paraphrasing what he said fairly accurately—he tended to agree and said that he would look further at the matter because it was not desirable, obviously, for the situation to be made worse. He was kind enough to offer a meeting with himself and his officials, which was held on 11th February. It was attended by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, and myself. We had an interesting discussion on these matters and the officials promised to come back to us with further advice on how the Bill would affect the governance of clubs.
	Noble Lords who attended that meeting received today, at lunch-time, a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in which he states that the primary escape clause is repealed. However, if I understand the letter correctly—I hope that my noble friend appreciates that I have not had long to study it—the Bill represents a modest step forward as all full and associate members, men and women, will be empowered to vote for the committee.
	I hope that this means that committees elected as a result of these new governance arrangements will, if they wish, be able to eliminate discrimination in the provision of facilities and access to them. I hope that when my noble friend replies he will confirm that that is the case. If it is, and the situation is taken forward and improved as a result of the Bill, I would not encourage the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to press his amendments.
	Tomorrow, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will introduce the Second Reading of his Equality Bill, which deals with this and many other equality issues. I am looking forward to taking part in that debate and to supporting him on that occasion as well.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, having recently returned from the dentist I have had even less time to read the Minister's letter. I support entirely everything that has been said about all three amendments. It is absolutely crucial that the position is made clear. Unless the Minister can assure us that what he states in the letter is accurate and can be referred to should the need arise, we would wish to press the matter further. But, in the meantime, that is quite enough from me.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I feel slightly irresponsible in that what I am about to say is purely a jeu d'esprit. I declare an interest as a member of both the Beefsteak Club and Brooks's Club, which admit ladies as guests but not to membership.
	In the 1930s, in the latter of those two clubs, Brooks's, a noble Duke—presumably, at that stage, a Member of this House—was dozing in an armchair when he became conscious that a man and a woman had entered the room. He waited for them to leave the room. When they did so, he pressed a button and a club servant arrived. The Duke said, "What was that?" The club servant said, "That, your Grace, was the club secretary and Her Majesty the Queen". "The thin end of the wedge", said the Duke, and shut his eyes.
	I feel that somewhere in another place the shade of that noble Duke will be enjoying the fact that at least three-quarters of a century later we are still discussing these matters.

Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I cannot accept these amendments. It is not the business of the Bill to make judgments on the composition of clubs. I am probably old fashioned, but in general terms I believe that the purpose of clubs is to bring together like-minded souls. It is for the club to decide its own rules.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I should not be surprised if the focus is mostly on clubs in London. However, I got the impression that the clubs mainly affected by the proposal will be golf clubs. I abhor the game of golf—I find it boring and cannot play it. However, the amendment may be able to remove a perennial problem that arises in many golf clubs around the country, which I find anachronistic; namely, women not being allowed full voting rights. This issue should be moved forward and the Bill should address it. Many golf clubs rely heavily for their continuance on the income from bars. I raise the matter partly because I had a long and detailed argument with my brother-in-law about voting rights in golf clubs.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, when, a few moments ago, I raised the matter of paragraph 10 of the draft guidance, the noble Baroness the Minister slapped me down, very nicely but very firmly, by pointing out that the conditions refer to licensing objectives. Surely, if that is the case as regards premises, it ought to apply to clubs. There is nothing in the objectives, so far as I can see, which covers the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. It follows on from the very full debate that we had on this subject in Committee. I have spoken on this issue on a number of occasions in this House. I do so with the support of Her Majesty's Opposition, as a matter of policy. We will not support any proposal that makes women second-class citizens.
	Noble Lords have talked about being old-fashioned. They might feel differently were they to be put in the invidious position of being allowed only into certain parts of a premises. At a reception I attended recently I met a wonderful lady who explained to me how one day, as the first woman member of the board of British Rail, she was put in a very difficult position. A luncheon was held in a club that shall remain nameless, a club that invited women in as guests. The luncheon was held on the first floor. The other members of the board of British Rail walked up the stairs and she was in the awful position of having to go up the back stairs. The other members of the board were rightly embarrassed by the situation. It had not even occurred to them how she might feel having to use the back stairs as though she were a second-class member. Having met her, I suspect that she was indeed first-class and ahead of her colleagues.
	I need add little to what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote. This is an extremely important area. I am sorry that I was unable to attend the meeting on 11th February when this matter was discussed fully and sensibly. I feel that I have been "meeting-ed out" lately and for some reason I could not be present. I regret that, because I may have been tempted to see whether I could put my name to, for example, Amendment No. 127. I want to show great sympathy for this important amendment. As explained to us by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, it represents a powerful faction against racial discrimination. In that regard, I have a great deal of sympathy for the proposal, as I hope the Government will.
	I hear what my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale says about whether such a proposal is apparent in the licensing objectives. But I believe that in this House we are in a privileged position. When scrutinising legislation, we can look for any opportunity to try to put right matters which we passionately believe—in different ways; we have the wonderful right to differ—to be discriminatory and unfair and which compromise the quality of people's lives for no good reason. I have great sympathy in relation to Amendments Nos. 127 and 128. It is an extraordinary situation when a woman has the right to vote for a committee but no right to have membership of the committee. That happens in many cases still, and it cannot be right. I appeal to all noble Lords who have never been in the position of being discriminated against to imagine what it feels like to be compromised in that way.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we had an extremely interesting debate in Committee on similar amendments. My noble friend Lord Faulkner took the leading role in that debate. The debate has been interesting again today.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lester, was present at the meeting to which noble Lords referred when we discussed these issues and after which he tabled the amendments. He has a great reputation for the work he has done in this area. I regret that he is not with us today, but the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, did more than an ample job of stepping in for him, as noble Lords would expect. He presented the amendments with customary force.
	I make the obvious point that the Government support the broad concept behind the amendments. We recognise exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, spoke about—the adverse effects of discrimination. She is not the only contributor to this debate who could have made that point with force. Only temporary ill health may have restrained the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, from speaking about the issues with force.
	Discrimination on sexual grounds is not acceptable in our society, and we want it to be removed. There is another amendment dealing with the equally important issue of racial discrimination. The Government recognise that substantial work is being done in this Session of Parliament to address those issues. A Private Member's Bill is passing through the Commons with government support. My noble friend Lord Faulkner referred to the fact that tomorrow we will discuss another Private Member's Bill on equality. There is activity in Parliament to promote the principles of equality.
	Our contention is that the Bill is not a suitable vehicle for advancing these issues, which need to be addressed more comprehensively. When they are addressed, the subsequent provisions will be valid for all institutions in the land. This Bill is concerned only with licensing; it has a restricted objective.
	I was concerned in Committee by the contention that the Government, by repealing the Licensing Act 1964, were weakening the defences against discrimination. I am happy to take this occasion to reinforce what I conveyed in my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to which noble Lords who attended the meeting have also had access. It is important that the whole House should be aware of the fact that we are not reducing the protection against sex discrimination in clubs by repealing Schedule 7 to the Licensing Act 1964. This important issue was raised in Committee when I expressed my concern about the need to address it. I am now able to assert that the Bill marginally strengthens the position rather than, as some who spoke in Committee feared, weakens it.
	As we know, sex discrimination in club membership is currently not unlawful. In determining whether a club may be registered for the purposes of the 1964 Act, the magistrates, in cases where a club does not conform to the provisions in Schedule 7 to that Act, have a discretion to consider whether it is established and conducted in good faith. Schedule 7, as a consequence, gives no absolute protection with regard to the mandatory application of its provisions.
	There is only one area in which magistrates have to apply the provisions of Schedule 7 and have no discretion, and that is in the area of elective committees of clubs. Even here, however, the provisions of Schedule 7 provided a derogation. Although Schedule 7 applies certain voting requirements for elective committees, to the effect that all members entitled to use the club must be entitled to vote for the committee, there is an important exception. Where the club is primarily a men's club, women may be excluded from voting. Where the club is primarily a women's club, men may be excluded from voting. That obviously undermines any value which Schedule 7 has in reducing sex discrimination. The Bill removes that anomaly in the mandatory area and therefore improves the position.
	Clauses 61, 62 and 63 clearly improve the position. Under the Bill, where a club supplies alcohol, the committee which purchases the alcohol must be elected by the members of the club. The effect of the formulation in Clause 63(2)(c) is that all members of the club of any class of membership must vote for the committee. For these purposes, the reference to "member" would not include "associate members" as defined in Clause 66. They are members of another recognised club or a guest of such a person. Unlike Schedule 7 to the 1964 Act, this provision does not have any exceptions and can therefore truly be seen as a strengthening of the voting rights from the standpoint of the prevention of sex discrimination. I therefore feel that we have taken on board the representations made in Committee and have ensured that the Bill marginally improves the position.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, also emphasised the significance of Amendment No. 127 on the issue of race discrimination. I believe that that stems from a concern that the Bill, when enacted, would override the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976. However, it is already unlawful for an association, which would include a qualifying club, to discriminate on the grounds of race under Section 25 of the Race Relations Act 1976. That is a specific provision in law, and the rules of statutory interpretation mean that the provisions in the 1976 Act will not be overridden by the provisions of Part 4 of the Licensing Bill. Therefore, although I have listened to the noble Lord's comments on Amendment No. 127, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
	Amendment No. 127 also has the disadvantage of being somewhat disproportionate as it would impose the further condition, for a club to be a qualifying club, that it had not committed an unlawful act under Section 25 of the Race Relations Act in the three years prior to the application for a club premises certificate. I realise that the noble Lord regards that as a powerful sanction. However, the Government maintain that the provisions of the 1976 Act will apply in relevant cases to counter any abuse.
	I have made it clear that the Government have every sympathy with the intention behind these amendments, but this issue is best tackled by means of sex discrimination legislation. As I have indicated, the race relations issue is covered by existing legislation.
	The Bill improves on the current situation and will not remove any protection against discrimination on the basis of either sex or race afforded by existing legislation. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, said. He will recognise that on this occasion, his was a minority voice. It is a voice that we hear on many occasions, the last time being in Committee. However, the Government stand four square with the principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, identified in her concluding speech.
	The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to the provisions that would be affected by Amendment No. 128. If all the members of the club have voted for the committee, it would surely seem odd to then place a form of control on the way in which members of private members' clubs elected members of the committee. Surely there should be freedom of choice for the club, as long as we guarantee that all members have the right to elect the committee. Under this licensing measure, they have the right to apply for a licence.
	I understand that there is no way in which I can satisfy all the representations made on these amendments. They stem from a position of real principle deeply felt by Members on both sides of the House, and I am dealing with a measure that is on the margins of these issues. I hope that I have given the assurance necessary that the Bill makes a marginal step in the right direction. In addition, we have other legislation on the stocks to which noble Lords will address themselves in due course.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, my noble friend's reply was very helpful, but will he assure me that a committee of a club that is classified as primarily a men-only club which, under the new rules, would have to change, will not be allowed to pass a series of regulations which disfranchise women members who are associates from taking part in future elections?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Bill does not prescribe how private clubs should operate. The committee applying for the licence must reflect the membership of the club because it will take responsibility respecting all the provisions of the Bill when it is enacted. Within that framework, women members of the club can participate.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I imagine that the Minister will not be surprised to hear that his response comes nowhere near satisfying me. I am very grateful, as, I am sure is my noble friend Lord Lester, for the general, though not universal, support that the amendments in the group have received.
	The Minister says that Clauses 61, 62 and 63 marginally improve the position. I can only say that the improvement is so marginal as to be almost invisible. I can see no justification for saying that although women are now entitled to vote for membership of what I call the alcohol committee under Clause 63(2), it is perfectly legitimate for the club to pass a rule that women cannot be elected as members of the alcohol committee. If the Government are prepared to legislate to give all members a right to vote for the alcohol committee, it is wholly appropriate and logical that they should take the further step of saying that any member, subject to an age restriction, must be eligible to be a member of that committee.
	However, in the circumstances, I do not intend to press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
	Clause 63 [The additional conditions for the supply of alcohol]:
	[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
	Clause 68 [Authorised persons, interested parties and responsible authorities]:
	[Amendments Nos. 129 to 131 not moved.]

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 132:
	Page 39, line 38, at end insert—
	"( ) the local planning authority within the meaning given by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) for any area in which the premises are situated,"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 133 to 135 not moved.]
	Clause 69 [Other definitions relating to clubs]:

Lord Evans of Parkside: moved Amendment No. 135A:
	Page 40, line 16, at end insert—
	"(ab) the supply of alcohol by or on behalf of the club to a member of the club in person for consumption off the premises where the supply takes place, or"

Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I declare an interest as an active member of the Parliamentary All-Party Group for Non-Profit Making Members' Clubs. This is a straightforward amendment to correct an omission in the Bill.
	If Clause 69 is passed in its present form, members' clubs, including organisations such as the CIU, the Conservative Association, the Labour and Socialist Clubs, the Liberal Democrat clubs, the British Legion and others, will be deprived of a service that they have enjoyed for over 40 years: the right for a club to sell to its own members in person alcohol to be consumed off the club's premises. That right is enshrined in Section 39(2) of the Licensing Act 1964, which the Bill will replace. It says:
	"No intoxicating liquor shall, on any premises in respect of which a club is registered, be supplied by or on behalf of the club for consumption off the premises except to a member in person".
	I have been a member of members' clubs for more than 50 years and I have never known any difficulties or problems in relation to the operation of that part of the 1964 Act. It is not a major contribution to any club's prosperity; it is simply a service to its members.
	I suspect that the right of clubs to sell liquor to their own members in person—I stress that no one can walk off the streets and purchase liquor for consumption on or off the premises in a club of which they are not a member—was overlooked when the Bill was drafted. There is nothing in the draft guidelines referring to this strange omission. I trust that my noble friend will accept my amendment and restore to members' clubs the status quo that they have enjoyed for more than 40 years. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I emphasise that the Government recognise that there is much to be valued in this country's club movement and the role that private clubs play in our society. Of course, different considerations arise in relation to clubs, which are private premises to which public access is restricted. That is why they are treated differently and separately from pubs, bars and other licensed premises. It is why the supply of alcohol for consumption by members and guests on premises for which there is in a force a premises certificate is subject to a different regime, with lighter controls.
	However, that applies only where clubs are run properly, where they do not pose a threat to the licensing objectives and where they do not seek, or encourage, trade from non-members. Safeguards are necessary here, as they are throughout the Bill, to prevent crime, disorder and public nuisance and to ensure public safety and the protection of children from harm. My noble friend, who has played a significant role with regard to working men's clubs, will confirm that the vast majority of such clubs present no problems in regard to the objectives I mentioned.
	However, the amendment seeks to alter the definition of the supply of alcohol in relation to qualifying clubs. In doing so, it would affect all of Part 4, which sets out the new system for private member's clubs, and would broaden the scope of activities covered by the system of club premises certificates to allow for the supply of alcohol for consumption off the club premises.
	Under the Bill, club premises certificates would not permit the supply of alcohol to members or guests for consumption off the premises—a premises licence would be needed for that.

Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I ask my noble friend to withdraw the remark about guests. Guests have no right whatever to purchase alcohol in a club for consumption on, and definitely not, for consumption off the premises. The right of an individual member to purchase alcohol for consumption off the premises has existed for over 40 years, and exists today, and has never constituted an abuse at any time under any circumstances of which I am aware.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I stand corrected on the point with regard to guests and their ability to purchase alcohol. I shall not try to compete with my noble friend's knowledge with regard to the purchase of alcohol at private clubs. However, no one has asked us to change the position. Indeed, we have received representations from certain quarters that we may have been overly-protective of the club movement. We listened to those representations but concluded that the club tradition in this country is so important to the life of the country that it is worth preserving as it is. That is what we set out to do and I firmly believe that the Bill achieves that.
	Requiring clubs to apply for a premises licence to supply alcohol for consumption off the premises would require the specification of a designated premises supervisor and ensure the presence within the club of at least one personal licence holder. As noble Lords will know, under the Bill, to qualify for a personal licence, individuals must be over 18, not have had their licence forfeit in the previous five years, have no relevant unspent convictions and possess a recognised qualification. That qualification would cover issues of social responsibility and all the offences relating to the sale or supply of alcohol.
	The requirement for a premises licence is justified in relation to off supplies or sales on the grounds of promoting the licensing objectives as it would also ensure appropriate powers for the authorities to deal quickly and effectively with premises that have become a source of disorder, nuisance or crime.
	My noble friend's amendment would substantially change the position. We seek to preserve the present position, recognising the value of clubs. I hope that on that basis my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulty of my noble friend in that he is not particularly au fait with the whole situation with regard to the club movement. I confess my dismay at his reply but, as I say, I understand his difficulty. Will my noble friend Lord Davies and my noble friend the Minister consider the matter further before Third Reading? I shall certainly consult the clubs association—

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will allow me to intervene as the only opportunity I have to respond to that point is to intervene in his speech. I hope that he will forgive that rudeness on my part. I recognise that he presented the issue forcefully and contended that the provision would cause serious harm to the club movement. I should be only too happy to discuss the matter further with him.

Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that remark. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 70 [Application for club premises certificate]:

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 136:
	Page 41, line 4, leave out "Regulations may" and insert "The Secretary of State must by regulations"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 71 [Determination of application for club premises certificate]:

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, if Amendment No. 137 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment No. 138.

[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 138:
	Page 41, line 26, leave out from "application" to end of line 28.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as we made clear in Committee, the Government recognise that different considerations arise in relation to clubs, which are private premises to which public access is restricted. That is why they are treated separately from pubs, bars and other licensed premises. I made that point when responding to my noble friend's amendment a few moments ago. It is why the supply of alcohol for consumption by members and guests on premises for which there is in force a club premises certificate are subject to a different regime with lighter controls.
	In drafting the Bill, where appropriate, provisions have been applied to both premises with a premises licence and those with a club premises certificate. Clause 72 seeks to apply what is a mandatory condition for premises licences—that, where the condition is attached to a licence that door supervisors are required, the licence must include a condition that those supervisors are registered with the Security Industry Authority—to club premises certificates also.
	As a result of the Private Security Industry Act 2001, as consequentially amended, that mandatory condition does not apply to premises used exclusively by clubs with a club premises certificate. That means that Clause 72 is disapplied in relation to the very premises to which it actually applies. It is therefore unnecessary, and Amendment No. 145 seeks to remove it. Amendments Nos. 138, 143, 155, 161, 280 and 281 are consequential, removing references to Clause 72. I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 139 to 142 not moved.]

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 143:
	Page 41, line 40, leave out from "objectives" to end of line 42.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]
	Clause 72 [Mandatory conditions: door supervision]:

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 145:
	Leave out Clause 72.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 75 [Grant or rejection of application for club premises certificate]:
	[Amendments Nos. 146 to 149 not moved.]
	Clause 82 [Application to vary club premises certificate]:

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 150:
	Page 46, line 23, leave out "power to make regulations under" and insert "duty to make regulations imposed on the Secretary of State by"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 83 [Determination of application under section 82]:
	[Amendments Nos. 151 to 154 not moved.]

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 155:
	Page 47, line 17, leave out subsection (7).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 84 [Supplementary provision about applications under section 82]:
	[Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 not moved.]
	Clause 85 [Application for review of club premises certificate]:

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 158:
	Page 48, line 19, leave out "Regulations under this section may" and insert "The Secretary of State must by regulations under this section"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 86 [Determination of application for review]:
	[Amendments Nos. 159 and 160 not moved.]

Baroness Blackstone: moved Amendment No. 161:
	Page 49, line 32, leave out subsection (5).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 90 [Fees]:
	[Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 not moved.]
	Clause 98 [Temporary event notice]:

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: moved Amendment No. 163A:
	Page 55, line 40, leave out "ten" and insert "twenty-eight"

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 166, which proposes a new clause to Clause 102, to Amendments Nos. 170, 174, 176 and 178 in Clause 103 and to Amendments Nos. 179, 182 and 184 to 186 in Clause 104. Most of those amendments, noble Lords will be pleased to know, are consequential.
	This group of amendments deals with extending the notice period and the grounds for objection to cover all the licensing objectives, and to make provision for the fire and licensing authorities to object to an application if they believe that that is necessary. The House heard many of the arguments in favour of the amendments at earlier stages of the Bill. While I do not want to delay our proceedings unnecessarily, it is right that comments should be made on the replies given in Committee by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. We considered proposals to, among other things, extend the notice period that must be given to local authorities from 10 to 28 days; allow local authorities and fire authorities—not simply the police authority—to object; extend the "notice to object" period for police, fire and local authorities from 10 to 28 working days; and give powers to the relevant authorities to object on the grounds of all of the licensing objectives and not simply the crime prevention objective. I hope that the Government will reconsider their objections to the amendments.
	I recognise and support the Government's plans to simplify the temporary events application procedure. In answer to the inquiry posed by my noble friend Lord McIntosh in Committee—he was explaining why the relevant authorities need more than 10 days' notice—I say to him and the House that it is recognised that in the vast majority of cases, applications for temporary events, such as church fetes, will be uncontroversial. However, there will be a minority of cases, such as an application for music festivals and other events involving, for example, marquees, where local authorities will have a duty to investigate the application and undertake noise and safety checks.
	In addition, there will be some cases, such as a proposed event being put on by a major club promoter that is likely to attract more than 500 people, when local consultation will need to happen. Ten working days will not be enough time in which to send out letters to residents and receive responses. Twenty-eight days is the current notification period, and it is a reasonable notice period for any event, whether a pop festival or a church fete. Organisations putting on events usually advertise those events well in advance to attract people to the event. It is clear that the Government recognise the importance of having a reasonable notice period.
	In the draft guidance relating to Clause 177, temporary event notice 9.9 states:
	"Ten working days is the minimum possible notice that may be given. Licensing authorities should publicise locally their preferences in terms of proper notice and encourage notice givers to provide the earliest possible notice of events likely to take place".
	If the Government acknowledge that a longer notice period of 10 days should be given, why can it not be included in the Bill? A better solution would be to formalise the process and increase the notice period in the Bill. In that way regional variations of notice will be avoided.
	I turn to the amendments that deal with extending the grounds to object to cover the licensing objectives and allow the fire and licensing authorities to make objections. I again refer to the points made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh, who said in Committee that allowing fire and licensing authorities to object on the grounds of all the licensing objectives would make life difficult for applicants. He also said that it would require them to "jump through hoops".
	It is my firm belief that allowing licensing and fire authorities to object will affect only a small number of applications. I refer, for example, to music events and other events where authorities have legitimate grounds for believing they will attract more than 500 people, the permitted limit for temporary events. It is inconceivable that local authorities will want to object to school fetes or Women's Institute coffee mornings; they would have no reasonable grounds, time or resources to do so. Increasing the number of objectors who can be considered is necessary to ensure consistency and uniformity through the Bill. That will simplify the application process.
	The legislation as it stands requires a potential event organiser to apply to the local authority for an occasional licence. The local authority then surveys the venue and takes into account the size of the venue, the type of entertainment and any special effects, and so on. It assesses the suitability of the premises, sets an accommodation limit and ensures that noise nuisance is minimised.
	Under the proposed new system of temporary event notices, local authorities would not be able to object. Therefore, it is possible that applications will be received for venues which are not suitable for public entertainment, regardless of the numbers attending. The police are not qualified to assess the suitability of premises or to calculate capacity. Under the new system, therefore, the possibility of the use of unsafe venues for one-off events is greatly increased.
	Without the wider objectives being taken into account, there will be instances when safety and noise legislation cannot be brought to bear. For example, an event put on by volunteers is not subject to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act as no one is at work. It is obvious that the legislation would not apply in those circumstances. That means it will not be possible to protect public safety at such events. That cannot be right.
	Considerable noise nuisance can be caused by such events and it will be difficult for local authorities to take action once the event is under way. An organisation cannot be said to be asked to "jump through hoops" if it is simply asked to indicate how it will comply with the law.
	Section 9.10 of the draft guidance, which deals with temporary event notices, states:
	"Licensing authorities may not seek to attach any terms, limitations or restrictions on such events other than those set down in the legislation. It is however desirable for licensing authorities to provide local advice about proper respect for the concerns of local residents; of other legislative requirements regarding heath and safety; noise pollution or the building of temporary structures".
	Providing local advice about public safety and public nuisance is good practice. However, there seems little point in doing so if local authorities are then unable to assess the premises to ensure that the measures taken by the organisers to address public safety and noise pollution are sufficient and, if the measures taken are not sufficient, to have the right to object to the temporary event taking place. As I said, current safety legislation cannot deal with these matters.
	In conclusion, we are all aware that police resources are stretched in most areas of the country and therefore the police will not always be able to respond to public safety or public nuisance call-outs on the day of the event. It is much better to consider these objectives at the time of application for the temporary event.
	A further consideration is the tragedy of the fire at Rhode Island last Thursday night. That occurred as a result of the unauthorised use of pyrotechnics. Under the current system of occasional licences, local authorities would pick that up and control the use of pyrotechnics through conditions. Under the proposed system, local authorities would not be able to object to the event, even if they knew that pyrotechnics were to be used by an inexperienced person in an unsuitable building. It is worth noting that the licensed capacity of the venue was 300. That event, which resulted in tragedy, would not have needed a premises licence under this proposal. I beg to move.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, my name appears in this group in that I have tabled Amendments Nos. 164 and 173. From the wording of Amendment No. 174 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, it will be apparent that essentially we are barking up the same tree. It was a tree that we visited in Committee.
	When I withdrew certain amendments to this same effect in Committee, I expressed concern that we might find ourselves ruing a great tragedy at one such event because we did not have tighter regulation. I gave the Minister the benefit of the doubt on that occasion. He was eloquent in expressing his desire to secure deregulation, but I continue to have the concerns reflected by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke. Therefore, I am happy to support him.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we also support these amendments.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, anyone who sat through Second Reading—the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is saying that he did not—would be somewhat surprised by the amendments. The whole thrust of criticism was that under the guise of deregulation the Bill in fact imposed new regulations. A number of examples were given of bodies which in the past had not been regulated. There were of course extreme examples, such as bell ringers, carol singers and so on. Specific examples used were those of village fetes and garden parties. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, was particularly eloquent in that area.
	The Government's answer was that instead of the full premises licensing procedure we have temporary events notices. We explained that temporary events notices were available only for a maximum of five occasions in any one premises during the year, or for a maximum of 12 applications from any one person; that the events could not continue for more than three days, so that they could last for a weekend but for no longer; and that there was a maximum number of persons who could attend such a temporary event. We explained that the temporary event notice procedure was as simple and unbureaucratic as possible in order to meet the concerns of the large number of speakers at Second Reading who thought that the Bill was regulatory rather than deregulatory.
	Now we have amendments that would bring the temporary notice procedure into a premises licensing procedure. Amendment No. 163A would extend the period of notice required and all the amendments would extend the number of people needing to be consulted and the basis on which objections could be raised. I do not say that this is the full premises licensing procedure, but it is different from the deregulatory procedures we set out in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 163A is slightly different from the other amendments. It proposes that the period of notice should be extended to 28 days. I was never sure in which parts of my noble friend Lord Clarke's speech he was quoting me or when he was speaking for himself. He did not change his tone of voice when he was quoting me. So I am not sure which pearls of wisdom were from him and which came from me.
	We made it clear that 10 days is the minimum period of notice. We would encourage people to give more notice. A large number of temporary events are known about in advance and there is no reason why notice should not be given in advance. However, there are occasions when a voluntary or charitable group might want to make arrangements at the last minute and 10 days has been agreed with the police as being a reasonable minimum period in order for them to look at an application from the point of view of crime prevention. Therefore, we are unwilling to increase the burden on charitable and voluntary groups and those putting together temporary event notices and extend the period.
	I think that I inadvertently gave a wrong figure. I said that an individual could give 12 notices in a year. An individual can give five notices a year if he is not a personal licence holder. A personal licence holder can give 50 notices.
	I turn to the other amendments in the group.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for giving way. I wondered about his figure of 12 instead of 50. He may recall that in Committee we had a short dialogue as to how a record would be kept in relation to the figure of 50 during which he was not relieved with a note from those in the Box. He very kindly said that if he received an answer at a later stage he would write to me. I am not in any way remonstrating with him over the subsequent silence, but since the point about the figure of 50 has arisen, I remind him of that exchange.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, is entitled to remonstrate with me and he will receive a letter; I am sorry that he has not yet received one.
	I turn to the other amendments in the group. Clauses 102, 103 and 104 set out the arrangements for giving temporary event notices to allow a licensable activity to be a permitted temporary activity carried on without a premises licence, or a personal licence holder, where alcohol is sold, following a simple notification to the licensing authority, acknowledgement from the licensing authority and compliance with the requirement to copy the event notice to the police. The premises user must also give a copy to the chief officer of police, who is the only authority with the power to object, if he is satisfied that allowing the premises to be used for the temporary event would undermine the crime prevention objective.
	The amendments have several effects that would only make life difficult for the large number of individuals who may be running ad hoc events for charities, hospitals or voluntary organisations—in other words, amateurs, not the licensed trade. They would bring into play all the licensing objectives when deciding whether to issue an event notice, not just the crime prevention objective. They would allow the fire and licensing authorities to issue objection notices. In later amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, wants us to go further than that. They would allow a licensing authority to issue counter-notices following consideration of all the licensing objectives—not just the crime prevention objective.
	Garden fetes, charitable fund-raisers and dances in local village halls should not be subjected to the additional hoops that many of the amendments would require. There is no need to expand the number of bodies needed to scrutinise them. As long as the police are satisfied with the proposals for the event and it meets the appropriate conditions—the permitted limit on numbers—there is no reason to impose any additional bureaucracy. If we were to accept the amendments, we should be giving the lie to many of the assurances that we have given on other aspects of the Bill. The system, and the Bill, allows those who do not ordinarily engage in such activities—amateurs, as I said—to carry on licensable activities on a temporary, strictly limited basis without having to fulfil the more rigorous requirements of a premises licence. I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply, but I express my surprise that he is surprised by the amendments. I should have thought that, given his long experience of local government and the time that he has spent in the House, he would not be surprised at anyone, on issues of public safety, trying hard to get a provision added to the Bill if he considers the Bill inadequate. I apologise to my noble friend for my tone of voice.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was not criticising my noble friend.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: Well, my Lords, I had the impression that my noble friend was. He referred again in his reply to the point that I cited—he said that people would have to jump through hoops. The Minister said so again this evening. I was referring to that. In Committee, I thought that that was overdoing it a bit.
	My noble friend refers to five cases a year. One tragedy in five years would be one tragedy too many. Police are professional in their job; so is the fire service. There is a role for both to play.
	It is impossible for me to press my amendment, but I hope that even at this stage, the Government will consider that people's safety must be paramount at all times. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 102 [Objection to notice by the police]:
	[Amendment No. 164 not moved.]

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 165:
	Page 57, line 24, leave out "48" and insert "96"

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I heard the rumble from the Minister about my producing even more strenuous amendments than those that the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, and I tabled in Committee, to which he responded. As the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, moved the original amendment, he spoke after the Minister.
	The Minister, in caricaturing what we were about, mildly misrepresented our position by emphasising a certain kind of event. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, moved amendments on the subject of garden parties and fetes, which the Minister used to characterise those events.
	The Civic Trust's view was that events such as raves and small pop concerts were treated within the same purview. Local residents' concern about such events is necessarily much more vivid and occasioned the anxiety that prompted these amendments. Amendment No. 165 would provide the police with a longer period to object to temporary event notices. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, most of the arguments are as they were on the previous group of amendments. This is a system with a light touch. It provides only that a person giving notice to the licensing authority must give a copy of it to the police, and that that must be done at least 10 working days before the day on which the event period starts. We provide that the chief officer has 48 hours to give an objection notice. The noble Lord's amendment would provide 96 hours—four days—in which to respond. I have no objection to the police having longer to respond, but that would leave less time for the local authority to hold a hearing, unless we extended the temporary notice period beyond 12 days. I have given my reasons for opposing that. It would be re-regulatory and contrary to the thrust of the temporary events notice procedures.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, when I have addressed noble Lords on the Bill I have been more preoccupied about inner cities than rural areas. But it would surprise me if the issue did not arise in another place, where there may be greater rural representation. For the time being, I am content to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: moved Amendment No. 167:
	After Clause 102, insert the following new clause—
	"OBJECTION TO NOTICE BY INTERESTED PARTIES, ETC
	(1) Where an interested party or responsible authority wish to object to a temporary event notice, they may give a notice ("an interested party notice") which must state the reasons why they object and be given to—
	(a) the relevant licensing authority, and
	(b) the premises user.
	(2) The interested party notice must be given no later than 14 days after the temporary event notice was given."

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I shall speak initially to Amendment No. 167 but also to Amendments Nos. 168, 169, 171, 172, 175, 177, 180, 181 and 183. I shall make an additional comment at the end on Amendments Nos. 246 and 247. I move these human rights amendments on Report because we did not deal with them at length in Committee.
	On Amendment No. 167, the convention requires that those whose rights are affected by a decision of a licensing authority should be heard in connection with such a decision. Temporary events in the Bill are likely to engage rights of individuals and non-governmental organisations by virtue of Article 2, which relates to positive obligations on local authorities to take measures to protect safety; Article 8 on nuisance; Article 14 on non-discrimination, and Article 1 of Protocol 1. The amendment ensures that such affected parties have rights to make representations.
	From the tenor of the Minister's response to the previous two groups of amendments, I am conscious that he would regard these as diminishing the climate with which the Government wish to surround such events. The other amendments in the group as far as Amendment No. 177 are consequential on the amendment introduced after Clause 102.
	The amendment also brings the full scope of the convention into the decision by placing an obligation on the licensing authority to have regard to licensing objectives which, if the amendment to Clause 4 were accepted—it was not—will include the protection of human rights.
	Finally, the provisions in Amendments Nos. 246 and 247 allow interested parties to appeal against decisions to grant permissions for temporary events. I suspect that in Committee in another place Members will return to some of the implications of the proposal. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, nearly all the arguments which I need to deploy, I deployed in respect of the previous amendments. This is a light-touch regime and is designed to meet the legitimate concerns of those who thought that things which are not now regulated should not be brought into the premises licence and person licence regime. I think they are right.
	The system of permitted temporary activities is designed to be easy and simple, reflecting the temporary nature of the event, the use of the premises for a temporary period and the range of organisations and individuals who might make use of them. These amendments would make that more difficult. It seems to us that provided that the police are satisfied with the proposals for the event, and it meets the appropriate conditions in terms of permitted limits, numbers of persons and events, there should be no reason to impose any additional bureaucracy.
	As these are by definition temporary events, there is no need to provide for objections by interested parties. I used the example of the school playing field opposite my house in London. Not more than five times a year, the former pupils of the school have a very loud party on a Saturday night which goes on until 4 a.m. As it is a wooden building, the recorded noise is very loud and unpleasant. But I do not want to set up a regime under which I can object to an activity which is legitimate and enjoyable for them just because it is inconvenient for me a few times a year. If there were to be a major nuisance, it would come to the attention of the police and they would have an opportunity to object. But to extend the process of objections to interested parties, as the amendment would, is over the top.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it is not my responsibility that the amendments were grouped in this way and that the Minister was obliged to give the same answer three times in response to three groups of amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, and I had cause to table.
	However, perhaps because fatigue is setting in late in the day, and the Minister has had to give the answer three times, I thought I heard him say in the final part of his last answer that the police would object if they thought there was something to object to. He implied that that would be the level of nuisance and noise. I understand that the only ground on which the police can object is that of crime prevention. Anything else does not fall within their purview. The Minister is anxious to ensure that I have understood correctly, so I will give way.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is right and that that was what I meant. If there were any risk of crime—a matter to which I would want to object, too—the police would know about it.
	I am now in the fortunate position of the bellman in The Hunting of the Snark. By dint of having three groups of amendments, what I tell you three times is true.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am appreciative of the Minister having borrowed a phrase which I used the other day. Imitation is an extremely sincere form of flattery and I give the Minister a guarantee—as indeed I would have given to the bellman—that I was perfectly prepared to believe him the first time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 103 [Counter notice following police objection]:
	[Amendments Nos. 168 to 178 not moved.]
	Clause 104 [Modification of notice following police objection]:
	[Amendments Nos. 179 to 186 not moved.]
	Clause 105 [Counter notice where permitted limits exceeded]:

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 187:
	Page 59, line 33, at end insert ", and
	(c) are not in respect of a village hall"

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, Clause 105 contains restrictions on the number of events that can be held by any one person or in respect of any one premises. If the person holding the event has a personal licence, he or she can hold 50 events in a year. If the person holding the event does not hold a personal licence, the number of events is restricted to five a year. In the case of a particular premises, there is a similar restriction to five events a year. The restriction on premises will create problems with village halls.
	We can live with the first two restrictions. If anything, the first restriction is generous. It is difficult to envisage someone holding a personal licence and wanting to hold an event every week without having any premises on which to hold the event regularly. The second restriction is slightly more difficult. It restricts people without a personal licence to only five events. Institutions such as the Women's Institute can probably get around it by having different members hosting events throughout the year. The same cannot be said of the last restriction as regards village halls.
	Village halls serve the community in various ways. In a typical small village in rural England, the Women's Institute, the Mothers' Union, the village horticultural society, the church, the scouts, the football and cricket teams and the village hall committee will hold many events in the course of a year in the village hall. Members of the public will often be invited to those events, and, often, alcohol will be sold. There will be no bar, and the alcohol will usually be a glass of red or white wine obtained with a ticket, with additional glasses thereafter being sold at a pound each. Outsiders may use the hall in a village. Again, alcohol may be served at such events, and the public might be invited.
	In most villages, the village hall is the central point for the community. We have made that point all through the debate on the Bill. It is unacceptable for there to be a limit of only five events a year at which alcohol may be sold. When I raised the point in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, accepted that village halls were a different matter but said:
	"They already require both licences to sell alcohol and public entertainment allowances".—[Official Report, 16/1/03; col. 386.]
	That may be correct for village halls in larger villages where there is a bar and regular entertainment of one sort or another. However, it is not the case in smaller villages where there is no bar and whoever puts on the event provides the wine or whatever is drunk that evening. The organiser will apply for a temporary licence, which is what happens in villages throughout the countryside.
	If the Bill is enacted in its present form, no more than five events at which alcohol is sold will be allowed. By the end of February, there will be no more events in the village hall, which will lose a substantial part of its income for the rest of the year and become unviable. I spoke about that at Second Reading with regard to my village of Goring-on-Thames. There are events every night in our village hall. We have no bar, but we have a strong community that holds itself together well through local events put on by volunteers taking up their time to get involved.
	It is no use the Government suggesting that the village hall committee should apply for a premises licence. Everyone serving on a village hall committee in a small village will be a volunteer. They will have neither the time nor, necessarily, the expertise to apply for a premises licence. Village hall funds are already modest. The cost of preparing the application for a premises licence and the fees would consume a significant part of their income. As the Bill is currently drafted, village halls will have to stick to five events a year and that would be an absolute disaster. I beg to move.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, the noble Baroness's description of her village hall sounds as though it could apply to our village. Her amendment is eminently sensible.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already been cited as the bellman and now I am in the role of Dr Doolittle with a pushmi-pullyu. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and my noble friend Lord Clarke want to make the rules for temporary events tougher, while the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, wants them to be relaxed.
	I love the idyllic picture both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, have painted of village halls. However, I noted with interest that the noble Baroness's earlier amendment on village halls included in the list of venues community halls. Those are much more my experience. I represented Tottenham on the Greater London Council. That constituency contained a notorious council estate which was at the centre of serious riots during the 1980s. The estate had a community centre. Ultimately that centre was run by a relatively small clique of people who excluded many of those who wanted to come in. The hall had a premises licence and a bar, which to an extent was the basis of the hall. That centre was as far removed from the idyllic picture of the village hall painted this evening and throughout the passage of the Bill as anything that you could imagine. Today the centre is totally different. Everything has been cleaned up and the entire estate is a model of community action.
	However, how can we distinguish in legislation between these types of premises? I suggest that it would be extremely difficult to do so and that the exemption now being sought would in fact make it difficult to put in place adequate control over the kind of community hall that I have just described. The amendment would allow an unlimited number of temporary events involving licensable activities to take place in village halls. In effect that would allow widespread circumvention of the licensing laws. Furthermore, it would undermine the balance we have sought to achieve between a light-touch regime and the protection of local residents.
	I had thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would oppose the amendment. It would have been logical and consistent for him to do so. We could be in danger of ending up with a system where alcohol could be sold from, or entertainment put on in, village halls all year round without the need of a licence and thus with no opportunity for local residents to object.
	I understand the anxieties on both sides of the argument, but surely we ought not to be moving in this direction.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am deeply disappointed with the Minister's response. Already I am drafting an amendment to table at Third Reading. Perhaps I should extend it to apply to community halls that have no bar.
	Quite on purpose we limited the amendment to cover only village halls because we are talking about what are essentially small village halls where there is no bar and people bring in any alcohol that is to be drunk that evening. It does sound idyllic, but I am proud to say that it is also real. That kind of activity and way of life, in spite of all the bullying and bureaucracy from central government, continues unabated at the local level. We should celebrate and encourage it for the years to come by ensuring that, in a Bill of this kind, we do not make life more difficult for local people working voluntarily and trying to do whatever they can to keep local communities together.
	I hear what the Minister says. I do not accept it. I shall seriously consider bringing forward an amendment at Third Reading which includes community halls, if that is realistic. But, for the moment, with some sadness, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 106 [Right of entry where temporary event notice given]:
	[Amendments Nos. 188 to 191 not moved.]
	Clause 110 [The relevant licensing authority]:

Lord Redesdale: moved Amendment No. 192:
	Page 62, line 21, leave out from first "the" to end and insert "Central Licensing Authority"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at eleven minutes past seven o'clock.